Abstract
Aims: This study investigated the educational standards in forensic odontology education, acknowledging the need for quality assurance, inclusivity, recognition, and consistency in training future forensic odontology professionals. Through a multi-method approach, the study employed a scoping literature review, a scoping website review, and a survey analysis to investigate the layers surrounding the development and execution of forensic odontology training programmes worldwide.Methods: The scoping literature review extracted historical and current training challenges and suggestions at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, revealing the neglect towards continuing historic educational gaps. It included literature from inception to the 10th of May 2023 and used an adapted PRISMA-ScR checklist to conduct the review. The data was collected based on eight main categories: formal training, curriculum, eligibility criteria, professional development programmes, education providers, dental councils, regulatory bodies, and important stakeholders. The website scoping review captures the number of postgraduate programmes with a web presence, revealing discrepancies in the core of each programme’s design. This review was also conducted based on an adapted PRISMA-ScR checklist. The information on formal education programmes was gathered through a web search on ‘Google Search’ in English, Arabic, Spanish, and French between June and July 2022. The survey analysis elucidates the educational gaps from an educator and learner’s perspective at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Four online questionnaires in six languages were disseminated to clinical and forensic dentistry students, educators, and practitioners via ‘Jisc Online Surveys’ (v2022) from the 1st to the 22nd of December 2022.
Results: The triangulation of the data collected from this research has identified the main challenges as the insufficient or lack of awareness at the undergraduate dental education level and clinical practice, followed by the paucity in formal postgraduate training programmes; not all postgraduate programmes have a web presence, and when they do, most websites did not communicate all essential information; there are no minimum or international standards in forensic odontology education in all aspects including programme development, programme certification, educator qualifications, learners admission requirements, acquiring the title of a forensic odontologist, and qualifications for practice and teaching.
Conclusion: These findings have resulted in the development of a database of forensic odontology programmes with programme details, core curricula for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, a guide for forensic odontology programme website content, a suggested compilation of artificial intelligence tools that can be used in academia, and a collection of continuous professional development programme topics in forensic odontology aimed at various relevant disciplines. It is hoped that these outcomes will help lay the foundation for the standardisation of education in forensic odontology.
| Date of Award | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Scheila Manica (Supervisor), Sarah Jones (Supervisor) & Hemlata Pandey Gala (Supervisor) |