Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: This paper presents peer-reviewed undergraduate curriculum guidelines for indirect restorations and prosthodontics. BACKGROUND: Prosthodontics teaching represents a significant part of Dental Undergraduate education. Despite the publication of European undergraduate curriculum guidelines in other fields, none exist for Prosthodontics. In 2023 the British Society of Prosthodontics (BSSPD) formed a working group to develop undergraduate curriculum guidelines specifically for indirect restorations and prosthodontics. METHODOLOGY: Learning outcomes (LOs) and competences were developed following the Association of Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) Graduating European Dentist guidance. Four capability domains were formed: (1) Knowledge of the scientific and evidence-base; (2) General prosthodontics; (3) Indirect restorations; and (4) Removable prosthodontics. To achieve agreement for the structure and content, a modified-Delphi approach was employed. This aimed to identify the clarity (clear/not clear), importance (essential/important/aspirational) and difficulty to teach (easier/more difficult to teach) for each LO. RESULTS: Agreement for LO clarity, importance and difficulty was achieved: 100% were 'clear'; 95% were 'essential', 5% were 'important' and none were 'aspirational'; 73% were 'easier to teach' and 27% were 'more difficult to teach'. The finalised guidelines contain 16 competencies and 90 LOs. LOs are classed as fundamental (assessable through discussion or written assessment), supporting clinical (directly observable within a clinical or skills environment, or through case-based discussion or written assessment), or clinical (directly observable within a clinical or skills environment) to assist implementation. CONCLUSION: Final consensus was reached for all LOs following the combined survey and in-person consultation process. A novel categorisation of LO supports educators to build these into existing curricula.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
King et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: