MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online search was conducted in Nov 2021 of all the dental schools in ten English-language speaking countries (U.S., Canada, U.K., Ireland, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Malaysia) to identify departments/divisions in the disciplines of periodontology, cariology, and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry. The results were then compared against the findings of a similar investigation that was conducted from July to October 2008.
RESULTS: Of the 126 dental schools identified in 2021, information was available for 93 dental schools. Of these 93 schools, only 10 listed departments/divisions/disciplines of cariology, whereas 83 and 86 schools had listed periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively. Despite a doubling of the number of dental schools with a department/division/discipline of cariology from 2008 to 2021, the absolute gap in the number of departments/divisions/disciplines in the other two disciplines compared to cariology had widened during the thirteen years. In 2008, there were 70 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology compared to cariology departments/divisions/disciplines. In 2021, there were 73 more departments/divisions/disciplines in periodontology. Additional information on research output was available for 90 dental schools in 2021, where 30 schools self-identified as undertaking cariology research, whereas 68 and 47 schools undertook research in periodontology and conservative/restorative/operative dentistry, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Dental education does not give equal emphasis to periodontology and cariology, and the discipline of cariology is grossly neglected.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental students (n = 122) in their clinical years, year 3 (n = 37), year 4 (n = 44), and year 5 (n = 41) received training (two-hour introductory lecture on ICDAS, followed by a 90 min e-learning video, and practice sessions using extracted teeth and photographs) from a calibrated expert. After training, the students examined a prevalidated set of extracted teeth and assigned scores in two sessions. The intra- and inter-examiner agreement between students was analyzed using weighted kappa statistics and a focus group discussion was conducted for qualitative feedback.
RESULTS: The range of kappa values for intra-examiner agreement among the year 3, 4, and 5 students for ICDAS caries code (0.611-0.879, 0.633-0.848, and 0.645-1.000) and restoration code (0.615-0.942, 0.612-0.923, 0.653-1.000), respectively. The range of kappa values for inter-examiner agreement for year 3, 4, and 5 students with a trained expert for ICDAS caries code (0.526-0.713, 0.467-0.810, and 0.525-0.842) and restoration code (0.531-0.816, 0.682-0.842, and 0.645-0.928), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The ICDAS system is a promising tool for caries detection and its implementation in the curriculum was perceived by dental students as an effective method. In general, there was moderate to substantial agreement for ICDAS caries and restoration code between students of different academic year groups and with a trained ICDAS expert.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: ICDAS is a simple, logical, and evidence-based system for the detection and classification of caries. Introducing ICDAS to dental students enables them to detect caries in a reliable and reproducible manner irrespective of their past clinical experience and also significantly improves their caries detection skills.
METHODS: An iterative e-Delphi technique was employed as the method for gathering consensus on a range of topics found pertinent to affect orthodontic teaching and learning established through literature review. A total of ten expert panellists were recruited through a targeted invitation to the orthodontists from Malaysian public universities offering undergraduate dental education. The e-Delphi comprised of three rounds of anonymous e-survey. The consensus was sought for two open-ended and two closed-ended questions.
RESULTS: The response rates for all the three rounds were 100 per cent. The total number of questions responded by the participants in all the three rounds was forty-four. Round one achieved consensus on two closed-ended questions. Round two achieved a consensus on twenty-eight out of thirty-four (82.35%) questions with round three achieving a consensus on four out of six (66.66%) questions. A 70% consensus was considered as the minimum level of agreement for all the rounds. In total, consensus and agreement were achieved on two closed-ended questions and twenty-nine items from the open-ended questions.
CONCLUSION: The study was able to identify a range of issues affecting undergraduate orthodontic education with a good level of consensus using the e-Delphi technique highlighting the need for curriculum refinement. The study has, in addition, proposed tangible methods to enable such a change.