Preclinical fixed prosthodontics is taught by Department of Prosthodontics faculty members at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry; however, 86% of all clinical cases in academic year 2012 were staffed by faculty members from the Department of General Practice. The aims of this retrospective study were to quantify the quality of impressions, accuracy of laboratory work authorizations, and most common errors and to determine if there were differences between the rate of errors in cases supervised by the prosthodontists and the general dentists. A total of 346 Fixed Prosthodontic Laboratory Tracking Sheets for the 2012 academic year were reviewed. The results showed that, overall, 73% of submitted impressions were acceptable at initial evaluation, 16% had to be poured first and re-evaluated for quality prior to pindexing, 7% had multiple impressions submitted for transfer dies, and 4% were rejected for poor quality. There were higher acceptance rates for impressions and work authorizations for cases staffed by prosthodontists than by general dentists, but the differences were not statistically significant (p=0.0584 and p=0.0666, respectively). Regarding the work authorizations, 43% overall did not provide sufficient information or had technical errors that delayed prosthesis fabrication. The most common errors were incorrect mountings, absence of solid casts, inadequate description of margins for porcelain fused to metal crowns, inaccurate die trimming, and margin marking. The percentages of errors in cases supervised by general dentists and prosthodontists were similar for 17 of the 18 types of errors identified; only for margin description was the percentage of errors statistically significantly higher for general dentist-supervised than prosthodontist-supervised cases. These results highlighted the ongoing need for faculty development and calibration to ensure students receive the highest quality education from all faculty members teaching fixed prosthodontics.Dr. Imbery is Associate Professor,

The aim of this retrospective study was to quantify differences between general dentists and prosthodontists regarding appointments, treatment time, impressions, and preoperative diagnostic data in teaching predoctoral clinical fixed prosthodontics. Electronic dental records (n=356) of patients treated at one dental school in academic year 2012 were randomly selected for review to obtain the following data: faculty and student demographics, number of appointments and treatment time from preparation to cementation, number of impressions made, completion of oral disease control treatment (ODCT), and presence of preoperative periapical radiographs and diagnostic casts. The results showed that ODCT was completed in 78%, preoperative radiographs were present in 76%, and diagnostic casts made in 53% of the cases reviewed. There was no statistically significant difference in number of appointments, treatment time, or number of final impressions when students were staffed by general dentists or prosthodontists. When students were supervised by multiple faculty members, there was generally an increase in treatment time and number of appointments and final impressions. Although this study found no statistically significant differences between general dentists and prosthodontists regarding the criteria evaluated, the results suggest that faculty development and calibration are needed to ensure ODCT is completed and preoperative radiographs are present prior to initiating fixed prosthodontic procedures.Dr. Imbery is Associate Professor,