Contemporary undergraduate implant dentistry education: a systematic review

Introduction: Consensus reports recommend that students upon graduation should possess a significant level of knowledge and competence in implant dentistry, including basic competences in diagnostics, treatment planning, restorative, straightforward surgical and maintenance procedures. In response, undergraduate curricula need to integrate implant dentistry. This narrative review explores educational programmes in terms of competences, related research and barriers or reflections, regarding implementation in undergraduate curricula. Materials and methods: Publications (2008-2013) were searched systematically in WoS, PubMed and ERIC and screened independently by two authors in four stages: removal of duplicates, title screening, abstract screening and full-text reading. Inclusion criteria encompassed implant dentistry in undergraduate education. Results: Finally, 37 of 420 papers were included. Detailed information regarding programme content, number of participants, staff input, logistics/funding issues is scattered. Theoretical education is predominant, and pre-clinical/clinical training is offered minimally, often carried out in elective programmes. However, selected straightforward cases treated by undergraduates yield positive outcomes with low failure rates, few complications, high patient satisfaction and student appreciation. Barriers to implementing implant dentistry in the undergraduate curriculum include funding issues, limitations in time or staff availability/competence and lack of suitable patients. Overcoming these barriers is worthwhile as experience-based implant education affects future practice as well-informed students propose more restorative alternatives to their patients. Conclusion: Although implant dentistry is increasingly integrated in undergraduate curricula, challenges remain in developing strategies to implement existing competence profiles and the extent of experience-based education. To support further advancement, universities should report comprehensively on their implant programmes to allow comparison and reproduction in other environments.