JDE
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Dent Educ. 61(5): 434-436 1997
© 1997 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Valachovic, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Valachovic, R.
Journal of Dental Education, Vol 61, Issue 5, 434-436
Copyright © 1997 by American Dental Education Association


Articles

Making science clinically relevant

RW Valachovic

Clinical practice requires a sound foundation in the basic and clinical sciences. However, the traditional dental curriculum often separates the two in a variety of ways that reduce their integration. The basic sciences are commonly taught in the first two years by a basic science faculty with inconsistent integration with clinical dental practice. The clinical sciences are often taught by faculty who may not be actively involved in research-related activities. The curriculum is dense and is difficult to modify to adapt to evolving scientific discovery and application. The 1995 IOM report focuses much of its attention on these issues. The Harvard School of Dental Medicine has dramatically modified its curriculum twice in the recent past to more closely integrate the basic and clinical sciences and to promote the clinical relevance of the basic sciences. The class entering in 1980 began a five-year D.M.D. program that was designed to decompress the curriculum and increase experiences that enhance scientific and clinical integration. The class entering in 1994 initiated a four-year program that uses a problem-based learning design throughout the entire curriculum. Strategies for integrating the clinical and the basic sciences along with research training and experience were developed and implemented in both programs.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
M. J. Geissberger, P. Jain, G. T. Kluemper, D. W. Paquette, L. B. Roeder, W. C. Scarfe, and B. J. Potter
Realigning Biomedical Science Instruction in Predoctoral Curricula: A Proposal for Change
J Dent Educ., February 1, 2008; 72(2): 135 - 141.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Dent EducHome page
C. Sukotjo, K. Thammasitboon, H. Howell, and N. Karimbux
The Impact of Targeted Shortened Preclinical Exercises on Student Perceptions and Outcomes
J Dent Educ., August 1, 2007; 71(8): 1070 - 1079.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Dent. Res.Home page
A.M. Iacopino, M.E. Pryor, T.B. Taft, and D.P. Lynch
The Effect of NIDCR R25 Grant Support on the Curriculum and Culture of a Research Non-intensive Dental School
J. Dent. Res., July 1, 2007; 86(7): 581 - 585.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Dental Education Association.