This article describes how the University of British Columbia Faculty of Dentistry reached consensus on essential basic biomedical science objectives for DMD students and applied the information to the renewal of its DMD curriculum. The Delphi Method was used to build consensus among dental faculty members and students regarding the relevance of over 1,500 existing biomedical science objectives. Volunteer panels of at least three faculty members (a basic scientist, a general dentist, and a dental specialist) and a fourth-year dental student were formed for each of 13 biomedical courses in the first two years of the program. Panel members worked independently and anonymously, rating each course objective as \"need to know,\" \"nice to know,\" \"irrelevant,\" or \"don\'t know.\" Panel members were advised after each round which objectives had not yet achieved a 75% consensus and were asked to reconsider their ratings. After a maximum of three rounds to reach consensus, a second group of faculty experts reviewed and refined the results to establish the biomedical science objectives for the renewed curriculum. There was consensus on 46% of the learning objectives after round one, 80% after round two, and 95% after round three. The second expert group addressed any remaining objectives as part of its review process. Only 47% of previous biomedical science course objectives were judged to be essential or \"need to know\" for the general dentist. The consensus reached by participants in the Delphi Method panels and a second group of faculty experts led to a streamlined, better integrated DMD curriculum to prepare graduates for future practice.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Guidelines and recommendations are increasingly impacting day-to-day clinical care in medicine and dentistry. Although guidelines are only meant to define a range of treatment measures that have been proven to be medically useful, they can have a significant impact on both health care politics and reimbursement strategies as well as be misused to direct particular treatment modalities into the hands of certain specialties. Because these effects tend to not only negatively influence the acceptance but also impair the implementation of guidelines, the process of guideline compilation has to be transparent and based on clearly defined methodology. The German Association of Dental and Craniomandibular Sciences (\"Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde\", DGZMK) is the umbrella organization of all scientific dental associations in Germany, and initiating new guideline projects as well as continuously updating existing guidelines is one of one of its major tasks. These activities are pursued in cooperation with the \"Zahnärztliche Zentralstelle Qualitätssicherung\" (ZZQ) and the \"Arbeitsgemeinschaft wissenschaftlich medizinischer Fachgesellschaften\" (AWMF).

A consensus conference organised by the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ASGBI) and the Association of Surgeons of Training (ASIT) was held at the Royal College of Surgeons of England on 2 September 2005. All Specialist Advisory Committees and specialist associations were represented, except for orthopaedic surgery. The future of both academic surgery and training were discussed. We concluded that the European Working Time Directive, and Modernising Medical Careers are likely to have an adverse effect on future of research in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Most surgeons were concerned about the future of training and the development of surgery in general.

The aim of the present survey was to analyse the frequency and type of antibiotic prescriptions used in dental practice in Saudi Arabia, to assess the awareness of periodontal treatment need among dentists and specialists and to evaluate the distribution of dental specialties in Saudi Arabia. We distributed a questionnaire to 378 dentists including different specialists working in various major hospitals and dental departments. This same questionnaire was then redistributed, 3 years later, to 211 participants. Results from both surveys indicated that antibiotics were not always prescribed on a scientific basis. Cost was the most significant factor (p < 0.05). Interestingly, and although periodontal disease was included as one of the possible causes of infections, the penicillin group was shown to be the group of choice (p < 0.007) and was prescribed by 45% of all participants, metronidazole and tetracyclines followed and were the second most commonly prescribed antibiotics in both surveys (p < 0.05). It was further demonstrated that although the need for periodontics is present among patients and specialists, it is one of the least practised specialties (p < or = 0.008) along with oral surgery (p < or = 0.36).

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。