Aim <p>This Delphi study sought to identify priorities, challenges, and consensus strategies for enhancing implantology education in India across all academic and research levels.</p> Methods <p>The three-round process included 43 experts from universities, professional associations, scientific foundations, and clinical educators. The first round collected open responses online, which were consolidated into key statements. Rounds two and three involved live structured voting and discussions to refine consensus, with thresholds defined as ≥ 75% (consensus), 60–74% (partial), and &lt; 60% (none).</p> Results <p>Out of 43 initial participants, 31 completed all rounds. There was strong consensus (97.7%) for modular, mentorship-based implantology training at the undergraduate level. Experts unanimously supported an evidence-based, competency-driven postgraduate curriculum, challenges being lack of standardization (96.8%), curriculum gaps (77.4%), and faculty barriers (74.2%). Cost and regulatory issues were also noted (96.8%). For accreditation, 96.8% endorsed a multi-institutional model with university and international recognition. Most (87.1%) favoured Indian-international university partnerships; 51.6% supported collaborations with scientific institutions. In research pathways, 96.8% favoured flexible part-time international PhD programs and 93.5% stressed financial and mentorship support.</p> Conclusions <p>The study confirmed the need for standardized, competency-based implantology education in India, recommending integrated curricula, collaborative models, and internationally recognized accreditation to guide sustainable, evidence-based improvements in implantology education and research.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Delphi Study on Implantology Education in India

  • Vinay V. Kumar,
  • Katja Nelson,
  • Luca Cordaro,
  • Karuna Deucher

摘要

Aim

This Delphi study sought to identify priorities, challenges, and consensus strategies for enhancing implantology education in India across all academic and research levels.

Methods

The three-round process included 43 experts from universities, professional associations, scientific foundations, and clinical educators. The first round collected open responses online, which were consolidated into key statements. Rounds two and three involved live structured voting and discussions to refine consensus, with thresholds defined as ≥ 75% (consensus), 60–74% (partial), and < 60% (none).

Results

Out of 43 initial participants, 31 completed all rounds. There was strong consensus (97.7%) for modular, mentorship-based implantology training at the undergraduate level. Experts unanimously supported an evidence-based, competency-driven postgraduate curriculum, challenges being lack of standardization (96.8%), curriculum gaps (77.4%), and faculty barriers (74.2%). Cost and regulatory issues were also noted (96.8%). For accreditation, 96.8% endorsed a multi-institutional model with university and international recognition. Most (87.1%) favoured Indian-international university partnerships; 51.6% supported collaborations with scientific institutions. In research pathways, 96.8% favoured flexible part-time international PhD programs and 93.5% stressed financial and mentorship support.

Conclusions

The study confirmed the need for standardized, competency-based implantology education in India, recommending integrated curricula, collaborative models, and internationally recognized accreditation to guide sustainable, evidence-based improvements in implantology education and research.