Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Specialist in operactive Dentistry, M.Sc in Medical Education, Assistant Professor of Operative Dentistry Dep., Dental Materials Research Center, Dentistry School, Mashhad university of Medical Sciences, Iran
2 Specialist in operactive Dentistry, Associate Professor of Operative Dentistry Dpt., Dental Materials Research Center, Dentistry School, Mashhad university of Medical Sciences, Iran
3 Dentist, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
Background & Objective: Theoretical and clinical teachings in dentistry are not always according to the dentistry curriculum requirements but they serve as the basis upon which Dentistry graduates start their own practice The aim of this study was to find the resemblance between dentistry curriculum requirements with clinical experiences in restorative clinics of Mashhad Dental School in the two academic years of 2007 & 2008 Methods: Recorded data related to the teachings devoted to posterior Amalgam and Composite restorations were gathered from the archive of Restorative Department of Mashhad Dental School Teaching volume was determined by considering the number of lecturers and sessions of preclinical exercises in the operative simulation laboratory during the General Dentistry program Data available for direct posterior restorations placed by fourth fifth and sixth year students were gathered from the students report papers The collected data were coded and categorized according to the surface number of posterior amalgam fillings (AFS1 AFS2 AFS3) and posterior composite fillings (CFS1 CFS2 CFS3) These finding were placed on spreadsheets of Excel program and the related bar graphs were constructed for comparison of the devoted teaching volume and practice with the Dentistry curriculum requirements and the number of posterior amalgam and composite restorations Results: Theoretical and practical teachings of amalgam and composite restorations have been in favor of amalgam with the ratio of 2 to 1 Clinically practiced posterior composite restorations were 3 times more than the curriculum requirement For the placement of three surface posterior restorations amalgam favored over composite Conclusion: Shift to the placement of posterior composite restorations needs to be addressed within dentistry curriculum so the newly graduated dentists are prepared to place composite restorations properly
Keywords
2. Mjor LA, Moorhead J. Selection of restorative materials, reasons for replacement and longevity of restorations in Florida. J Am Coll Dent 1998; 65(3): 27-33.
3. Mjor IA, Wilson NH. Teaching class I and class II direct composite restorations: Results of a survey of dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 1998: 129(10): 1415-21.
4. Christensen GJ. Acceptability of alternatives for conservative restoration in posterior teeth. J Esthe Dent 1995; 7(5): 228-32
5. Mjor LA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent 2002; 27(2): 117-23.
6. Mjor LA. Long-term cost of restorative therapy using different materials Scandinavian. Scand J Dent Res 1992; 100(1): 60-5.
7. Mjor LA. The reasons for replacement and age of failed restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 1977; 55(1): 58-63.
8. Pallesen U, Qvist V. Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 2003; 7(2): 71-9.
9. Van Dejken JWV. Direct composite inlays /onlays: An 11-year follow–up. J Dent 2000; 28(5): 299-306.
10. Wilson NH, Mjor LA. The teaching of class I and class II direct composite restorations in European dental schools. J Dent 2000; 28(1): 15-21.
11. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ, Wilson NH. Trend in the placement of posterior composites in dental schools. J dent Educ 2007; 71(3): 430-4.
12. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ, Wilson NH. Challenges to teaching posterior composites in
the United Kingdom and Ireland. Br Dent J 200; 201(12): 747-50.
13. [Curriculum of dentistry education]. Available from: URL: http:// gpde. behdasht. gov.ir/ uploads/ 174_ 293_ moshakhasat_DoctorOmoomi.pdf. [In Persian]
14. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ, Wilson NH. Teaching the placement of posterior resin-based composite restorations in U.S dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137(7): 619-25.
15. Mjor LA, Dahl JE, Moorhead JE. Age of restorations at replacement in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Acta Odontol Scand 2000; 58(8): 97-101.
16. De Moor R, Delmé K. Black or white--Which choice for the molars? Part 2. Which does one choose for the restoration of posterior teeth: amalgam or composite? Rev Belge Med Dent 2008; 63(4): 135-46.
17. Jokstad A, Mjor LA, Qvist V. The age of restorations in situ. Acta Odontol Scand 1994; 52(4): 234-42.
18. Herrin HK, Harrison JL, Von Der Lehr W. The status of posterior composites in the dental curriculum. J Dent Educ 1987; 51(5): 252-3.
19. McComb D. Class I and Class II silver amalgam and resin composite posterior restorations: Teaching approaches in Canadian faculties of dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc 2005; 71(6): 405-6.
20. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ, Wilson NH. Teaching of posterior composite resin restorations in undergraduate dental schools in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Eur J Dent Educ 2006; 10(1): 38-43.
21. Lynch CD, Shortall AC, Stewardson D, Tomson PL, Burke FJ. Teaching posterior composite resin restorations in the United Kingdom and Ireland: Consensus views of teachers. Br Dent J 2007; 203(4): 183-7.
22. Ottenga ME, Mjor I. Amalgam and composite posterior restorations: Curriculum versus practice in operative dentistry at a US dental school. Oper Dent 2007; 32(5): 524-8.
)