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


     

J Dent Educ. 70(9): 909-917 2006
© 2006 American Dental Education Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Rogér, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rogér, J. M.

From the Students' Corner

A Survey of Dual-Degree Training Opportunities at U.S. Dental Schools

James M. Rogér, Sc.B.

Key words: student research, training programs, student recruitment, curriculum change, dental careers, mentorship

Submitted for publication 02/19/06; accepted 05/18/06


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The purpose of this article is to describe access to information for the dual-degree dental scientist training programs (D.D.S.-D.M.D./Ph.D.) currently available for predoctoral students at U.S. dental schools. Given the ongoing shortage of dental faculty and the progressive emphasis on evidence-based dentistry, these programs will be instrumental in training future dental faculty. A comprehensive review of the institutional websites for all fifty-six U.S. dental schools was undertaken in January 2006. After identification of advertised dual-degree programs, a follow-up survey was sent to twenty-two dental schools that described the existence of a dual-degree dental scientist training program. The results of the survey and website review indicate that there are a number of programs in operation, but it is difficult to determine even basic features of these programs including curriculum structure, financial aid, and infrastructure support for students. Several current dental scientist trainee students were also contacted to discuss their programs in more detail. The insights derived from this investigation may assist dental school applicants, current predoctoral dental students, and administrators seeking to design or promote their existing dental scientist training programs.

Depending on both the institution and the interest of the student, obtaining available information about becoming a dental scientist is not a simple undertaking. For the purposes of this article, I use the term "dental scientist" to describe an individual who has completed training in dentistry as well as rigorous formal research study leading to the Ph.D. Some dental schools offer clinical and graduate training concomitantly, but there are far more schools where research training is not a priority or an easily accessible option. Indeed, in my own case, I chose to transfer from one dental school to another because I was unsuccessful in establishing a combined research training program at my former institution. During this process, I spent many hours talking with directors of different training programs around the country. I thoroughly researched the various options that these dental schools present through their websites. Finally, I spoke with other students in these programs. My experiences in attempting to locate a dual-degree dental scientist training program that met my educational goals indicated that a comprehensive study of all the available D.D.S.-D.M.D./Ph.D. training options would be of value to other dental students and individuals who were considering applying to dental school but desired a research focus to their training. The purpose of this article is to report the outcomes of a study conducted to identify dual-degree training programs in dental education and the access to information describing these programs.

One of the primary concerns in dental education is the number of vacant faculty positions. There were an estimated 241 vacant full-time and fifty-five part-time faculty positions at the fifty-six U.S. dental schools in 2003–04.1 Given that the NIH Dental Scientist Training Program Awards seek to produce future leaders and dental scientists, efforts to expand and promote these programs to students need to be enhanced. In a recent "From the Students’ Corner" article, Ryan Edmunds stressed the need for research exposure in the dental curriculum.2 Doing so serves not only to interest students in different dental specialties and encourage them to undertake research as a future practicing dentist, but also exposes future career dental researchers to the various training options available to them. These sentiments have been expressed by Bruce Baum, chief of the Gene Therapy Branch at the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), in several articles over the last decade. Dr. Baum details the need for increased research and training opportunities in the dental curriculum by citing examples and professional successes from the medical education community.3–5 Briefly, Dr. Baum seeks to compare the advancements made within medicine via the biomedical sciences to the fairly stagnant and historical training of dentists. In a 2004 survey of more than 4,000 dental school graduates by the American Dental Education Association (ADEA), only 0.5 percent had plans to focus on teaching or research.6 Philip Stashenko and his colleagues at the Forsyth Institute in Boston have recommended that dental schools increase their recruitment of students interested in biomedical science to up to 20 percent of the class in hopes that one quarter of these students will pursue academia/research as a career.7

Medical education and practice have embraced biomedical science within the individual disciplines in their standards of care, but dental education and practice have largely been focused on the technical skills required to provide dental care, prompting Dr. Baum to ask, "Will Dentistry Be Left Behind at the Healthcare Station?"8 Indeed, to date, only one dental school has completely and comprehensively changed its curriculum to support student research/scholarship across the entire four-year program as a normal part of the educational experience.9,10 Marquette University School of Dentistry’s new curriculum contains a dedicated research/scholarship track, required of all students, which makes training and experiences in research feasible and accessible during regular curricular hours.9,10 This curricular approach was taken to specifically stimulate interest in academic/ research careers.

In 2004, Marquette University School of Dentistry combined forces with the University of Rochester Graduate School to create the only dual-institution dental scientist training program. This program is supported through the University of Rochester’s NIH T32 award. Dental students at Marquette, in addition to the mandatory research/scholarship track at Marquette, have the opportunity to combine their dental training with graduate science training at the University of Rochester in a combined program leading to both the D.D.S. and the Ph.D. degree. Further discussion of the details of this program appears below.

My goal for conducting this study was to identify and describe opportunities for students interested in formal scientific training during their predoctoral dental school careers. In doing so, I do not seek to address the reasons for the lack of interest and/or access to research training in U.S. predoctoral programs, but instead focus on the challenges facing students seeking information about training programs as well as faculty/administrators seeking to advertise and market these programs.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The primary data collection methodology followed a two-step process. First, I reviewed the websites of all fifty-six U.S. dental schools and also reviewed the Dental Scientist Training Program Institutional Awardees (NIH T32) available from the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) website. The Institutional Dental Scientist Training Program (NIH T32) offers funding for dental schools interested in sponsoring students to obtain their D.D.S.-D.M.D. and Ph.D. through an integrated curriculum. Second, after identification of research programs advertised either via the NIDCR or the individual school’s website, I sent a survey via email to one of the following individuals at each dental school: associate dean/ director of research, director of the dental scientist training program, or dean. The survey questions appear in Table 1Go. The survey’s goals were clearly explained, emphasizing that the information provided was to be used in this article. Dental schools were given two months to respond, and a follow-up survey/reminder was then sent. In order to evaluate the current accessibility of information about the program, no further attempts were made to contact the school after the second inquiry. This strategy was intended to mimic a student’s perspective (who may not follow up if a school does not respond after two requests for information) and give the individual school the opportunity to respond as they would for any student interested in their program. This study was not designed to seek out information not generally available to the public.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Questions submitted in the school survey
 
In addition to the website review and the school survey results, I contacted several current dental scientist trainees to better understand if my experience was unique. Through contacts established at the ADEA/AADR Annual Session in Orlando in March 2006, I communicated with several students via email using a brief questionnaire. Again, the goals of the survey were clearly explained, emphasizing that the information provided was to be used in this article. The survey questions appear in Table 2Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Questions submitted in the student survey
 

   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Of the fifty-six U.S. dental schools in operation in January 2006, twenty-two (39 percent) were identified from their individual websites or the NIDCR T32 award summary page11 to support dental scientist training programs. Based on these findings, the survey was sent to the school’s associate dean of research, the dental scientist program director (if such a position existed), or the dean. Of the twenty-two surveys sent to the schools, only three were returned: Marquette University/University of Rochester, University of California, San Francisco, and University of Washington. As stated in the introduction, this project surveyed dental schools and their dental scientist training programs from the perspective of a dental student. I acknowledge that many programs and opportunities may exist where information is not available on the school’s website or through the normal communication channels. The purpose of this article is not to investigate programs per se, but to review the current information regarding these programs that is available to all dental students.

While only the above-named three schools provided any response to the survey, through the initial website review I identified four dental schools that contain comprehensive sections of their website dedicated to their dental scientist training program: University of California, Los Angeles,12 Medical University of South Carolina,13 University of Maryland/ Baltimore College of Dentistry,14 and University at Buffalo.15 The content of websites for the remaining schools varied depending on the institution. Many dental schools do not discuss research directly on their websites; therefore, an additional search of the individual websites with the key words "research," "training," and "Ph.D." was executed. The results based on the individual survey responses and the website review are summarized in Table 3Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Dental schools advertising D.D.S.-D.M.D./Ph.D. programs
 
Individual Survey Results
All three of the schools responding to the survey indicated that they currently had students enrolled in their dental scientist training program. The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) was the oldest (ten years) and largest program with seven students currently enrolled. The University of Rochester (UR) was the only dual institutional program. To harness the strengths of different institutions, the University of Rochester Graduate School partnered with Marquette University School of Dentistry and the University of Puerto Rico School of Dentistry, with the research training undertaken and subsequent Ph.D. awarded from the University of Rochester. Marquette University currently has two dental students enrolled, and the University of Puerto Rico has one student enrolled in a similar dual-institution training program. The University of Washington has one student enrolled. The programs at the University of Washington and Marquette University/University of Rochester are two years old and have not yet graduated any dual-degree students. The University of California, San Francisco will graduate its first dual-degree dental scientist this spring.

All programs support basic science research, and UCSF also conducts a clinical research program. The programs at Marquette University/University of Rochester, UCSF, and Washington are structured in a similar fashion: a student will enter and complete three years of dental school with provisions made in the summer to undertake research rotations or additional coursework. Upon completion of the third year of dental school, the student will enter formal graduate study and complete his or her dissertation research, with the D.D.S. being awarded some time throughout or subsequent to this phase of training. Marquette University/University of Rochester was the only program designed to grant the student the D.D.S. after the fourth year. The University of Washington confers the dental degree upon completion of the sixth year, and UCSF will confer the degree after the seventh year or when the student begins to write a dissertation. Both Marquette University/University of Rochester and UCSF are funded through NIH T32 training awards, while the University of Washington’s NIH T32 application for one to two students per year is in progress; currently, it supports students with funds from the university and the Washington Dental Service. All three schools indicated that both a progressive administration and enthusiastic students were instrumental in establishing their programs. Marquette University School of Dentistry is the only school using the R25 grant mechanism to support a comprehensive curricular and cultural change that facilitates combined training programs.9,10 The NIDCR R25 Oral Health Research Curriculum grant mechanism has allowed Marquette to incorporate research directly into its new curriculum structure, encouraging formal mentored research as well as identifying and supporting future dual-degree candidates.9,10 The University of California, San Francisco was the only school graduating a student from its program and indicated the student planned to pursue a pediatric dentistry residency.

Comprehensive Web Search Results
The four dental schools with more detailed information on their websites were: University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Medical University of South Carolina, University of Maryland, and the University at Buffalo. These schools are supported by the NIH T32 training award although details regarding how the program is structured varied depending on the school. UCLA indicated that Ph.D. training can be obtained in disciplines of bone biology and bioengineering, head and neck cancer, and microbiology and immunity.12 The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) provides basic science intramural training or extramurally in cooperation with the NIDCR in Bethesda. The MUSC program also provides a $21,000 stipend and reduced tuition throughout the life of the program. This program is designed to be seven years in length, in which the student will complete one year of dental school followed by three years of research before returning to the dental curriculum for the final three years; both degrees are awarded at the end of the program.13 The University of Maryland/Baltimore College of Dentistry also provides a stipend and financial support throughout the seven-year life of the program, but does not specify the level of financial support. Students can pursue any of the topics from the University of Maryland School of Medicine’s Graduate Program in Life Sciences.14 The University at Buffalo’s program is designed to last approximately eight years. In the first two years, the students take many basic science and dental school courses and pass their preliminary exam leading to the Ph.D. They will then move exclusively to the dental school for two years to complete their clinical training and ultimately spend the final three to four years conducting their dissertation research. Financial support is provided for students in the program, but details about the type of research were not provided on the website.15 Websites for these four schools provided contact information for further questions. However, introductory and follow-up surveys sent by email to the individuals and addresses indicated on these sites were not answered.

Other Schools Search Results
Electronic searches of the schools that did not provide comprehensive descriptions of their dental scientist training programs at their main website revealed varying degrees of information. The Ohio State University College of Dentistry,16 University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine,17 University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry,18 and University of Texas Health Science Center at both Houston (UTHSC-H)19 and San Antonio (UTHSC-SA)20 are supported by NIH T32 awards, but none of these schools described the specific structure of the program or discussed the level of financial support. Websites at these schools only provided contact information for further questions.16–20 Introductory and follow-up surveys sent to the addresses on these websites were not answered.

Five of the twenty-two schools that have a dental scientist training program are not currently supported by NIH T32 awards: Loma Linda University,21 Medical College of Georgia,22 University of Illinois,23 University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey,24 and University of Pennsylvania.25 Of these five schools, only the Medical College of Georgia (MCG) describes the structure of the program on its website. At MCG, students will complete the first two years of dental school, followed by approximately three years of research, and then return to the dental curriculum for the final two years. The availability of financial support for students in the program is not discussed.22 The remaining schools imply that an allowance is available for students to complete a dual degree concomitantly with the graduate program at the university and offer contact information for further questions. Introductory and follow-up surveys sent by email to the addresses provided on the websites of these dental schools also went unanswered.

Direct Student Contact Results
During the 2006 ADEA/AADR Annual Session, the National Student Research Group held a breakfast to begin to build a network for current dental scientist trainees. I contacted two students from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHSC-H) and one student from the Baylor College of Dentistry to obtain a general impression of their experiences. All three students responded enthusiastically about their programs.

Students had different experiences when applying to their programs. One student at UTHSC-H and the student from Baylor discovered the program while already in dental school. Both were totally unaware of the opportunity to complete dual-degree training prior to matriculation. The other student at UTHSC-H applied specifically to schools that have dual-degree programs. He indicated that he did have some difficulty obtaining details about the program prior to the application process.

Both students at UTHSC-H indicated that the recruitment of new students is being de-emphasized. The student from Baylor commented that the dual-degree opportunities were completely hidden from his admission process. Only one student (UTHSC-H) was aware of the opportunity to complete dual training during dental school and turned down other schools that he was admitted to because they did not offer this training.

All schools were supported by the Institutional Dental Scientist Training Program (NIH T32), and Baylor indicated that some students have been supported by the Individual Dental Scientist Training Award (NIH F30). All three students were confident that they would complete their training. At Baylor, the school has verbally agreed to support all their current trainees if any unforeseen budget issues arise. The NIH T32 funding mechanism at UTHSC-H will be reviewed again in two years, and both students have indicated that they will apply for NIH F30 awards to secure individual funding regardless of the institutional grant (NIH T32). Due to the competitive nature of the review process, both students commented that this is the reason that UTHSC-H is not actively recruiting new students. Both schools indicated that there was a program director who directly facilitates financial support among other duties.

All students who participated in this adjunct survey indicated they had an interest in pursuing a specialty and ultimately an academic appointment. The student from Baylor indicated that, of the ten students that he can recall who have completed the program, three have remained in a substantive academic/research career.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Implications for Dental School Applicants
Given the number of institutions providing detailed information about their training programs, the word "persistence" must become a part of an applicant’s vocabulary. Hopefully, in some small part, this summary will help to identify those schools that actively support their dual-degree programs both financially and administratively. The following are closing recommendations for all dental school applicants:

  1. It is very important to align your research goals to the available options at the school you choose to attend. With the continued focus and use of the phrase "evidence-based dentistry," all dental schools will in some way or other try to highlight their commitment to research. It is important to determine if a dual-degree program is actually a feasible and accessible option at the given institution; these are excellent questions to bring up during interviews. This also presents an opportunity to get to know the dean of research and other faculty at your school of choice.
  2. Continue to ask these questions until you find a school that suits your needs: in the end, the more interested applicants the dental schools receive, the more likely they will be to promote these programs.
  3. Attempt to contact a current student at the school of your choice and procure the names of students currently in the dual-degree program (if one exists). Very often all students in the school will be aware of these students, and all of the students participating in these programs are eager to explain how they became involved. They may serve as your best resource during the application process.

Implications for Current Dental Students
Opportunities abound to pursue research during dental school, and while students like Ryan Edmunds2 and I will continue to spend our dental careers encouraging schools to promote and support further predoctoral dental research experiences, students should not overlook the current opportunities to participate in formal training. The following are recommendations for all current dental students:

  1. If you are already a student at a dental school that sponsors a formal dual-degree program, it is very likely that you are not too late to join the program. Of the schools that responded to the follow-up survey (Marquette University/University of Rochester, University of California, San Francisco, and University of Washington), all commented they were eager to recruit talented students with interests in biomedical research. In many cases, the timelines for completing the curriculum are flexible, and allowances can be made for third- and fourth-year students to join these established programs. You may have missed the financial incentives associated with joining the program earlier, but could make up for that by saving a few years in the overall timeline.
  2. One very exciting opportunity exists for dental students at schools that do not have a formal training program to pursue a Ph.D. during their dental education: the NIDCR will allow students to complete their thesis research at the Bethesda campus through the Graduate Partnerships Program. If you are a predoctoral dental student enrolled in a graduate degree (Ph.D.)-granting institution, you can work on the NIH campus with an NIDCR mentor while you pursue your thesis work. NIDCR will support you financially during your time in Bethesda, and you will complete your clinical dental training at your dental school. Some programs have already established partnerships, such as the Medical University of South Carolina,13 but the potential to establish new relationships is encouraged.
  3. If you are like me and did not make the final commitment to pursue research in dentistry as a career until being in dental school, your options may be more limited. If you are adventurous, you can certainly speak with the dean of research or other administrators and see what would be required to set up a program at your school. Perhaps you will be the driving force necessary in the student body to compel the administrators to offer these different approaches to dental education. Even if financial support is not available during your time as a student, your pioneering spirit may be the impetus necessary to prompt the school to pursue a T32 award grant or other funding mechanism in the future. Including my own experience, three out of the four students surveyed for this article did not know of the opportunity to complete dual-degree training prior to matriculating in dental school. Continue to ask faculty and other students about research opportunities, and you may be surprised to learn about an existing program at your school.
  4. One final option available to first- or, in exceptional circumstances, second-year students is to broaden your horizons to other programs that may be more suited to your goals. It may be controversial to advocate such action, but I would urge you to investigate the possibility of a transfer to a more appropriate program. Ironically, it was the opportunities given to me at my previous school that pushed me to commit to this path for myself. Having spent many months trying to establish an allowance to pursue my dental degree concomitantly with a Ph.D., I eventually looked outside and committed to my current program at Marquette University/University of Rochester. In my particular case, the progressive and research-focused administrative environment at Marquette was an open door for me to pursue my goal.

Implications for Dental Schools
If the word for current and future applicants is persistence, the word for current dental schools is recruitment. Stashenko et al. recommended that the current student body of dental schools should consist of at least 20 percent students who are interested in careers in biomedical research and desire to pursue the dual degree.7 If even one quarter of these students become dental school faculty and researchers, this would represent a tenfold increase in the current numbers. The very low response rate to this survey (n=3/22; 13 percent) among the twenty-two schools that appear to have dual-degree programs indicates to me that dental schools are not encouraging potential dental scientists to follow the path that dental education so desperately needs. Many of these potential dental students may instead go on to pursue research degrees (Ph.D.), seeing dentistry as a highly technical discipline that lacks a true biomedical foundation at the practice level. In 2003–04, the number of vacant full-time basic science faculty positions was reported at thirteen (4.5 percent), while the number of vacant full-time clinical science positions was 183 (63 percent).1 Loma Linda University has recognized the potential implications of a faculty shortage. In their article, Charles Goodacre and William Loveless discuss the school’s new program designed to recruit Ph.D.-level scientists and then sponsor their training in dentistry, demonstrating their desire to enhance the percentage of research-trained faculty members.26 Sara Werb and David Matear, at the University of Toronto, have tackled the question of how to best incorporate evidence-based dentistry into the undergraduate dental curriculum. They specifically cite clinical instructor misapprehension as the common barrier to training dental students in evidence-based dentistry and recommend faculty development for these instructors to enhance their knowledge of current research and relevant literature.27 Such programs seek to develop a new breed of dental educator as both clinician and basic science faculty member. The dual-degree dental scientist program offers an efficient method to train these new potential faculty members.

Current dental students taking their first-year classes often see biomedical sciences as purely a rite of passage with little regard to the subject matter once board exams are over.6 Training and recruiting faculty members who possess this dual training truly integrate the technical and clinical aspects of dentistry with the basic biomedical sciences that support them. Seeing a D.D.S.-D.M.D./Ph.D. as only a scientist is as puerile as seeing a D.D.S.-D.M.D. as simply a clinician; however, recognizing this potential talent opens up the possibility to combine clinical and basic science faculty and begins to chip away at the current combined 196 vacant full-time faculty positions.

Many current faculty members already have this dual training. I am in no way disparaging their tremendous efforts in the uphill battle they had to endure to be formally trained as a clinician and scientist. This option was more feasible in the past, but the increase in the average debt for graduating dental students, from $84,247 in 1990 to $135,721 in 2004 (61 percent increase), at all schools has become a major barrier for students interested in pursuing research careers.6 Of those seniors who entered private practice, 71.6 percent listed debt as a "factor" or a "major factor" that influenced their decision.6 If a mechanism to fund further formal training had been available, it is reasonable to believe that some of these students would have given serious consideration to other career paths within dentistry.

It is not enough that dental schools recruit and encourage students by establishing programs that make a career in research feasible. Dental schools must go further in supporting these students financially by securing grants and providing other funding mechanisms to promote their future faculty and researchers. I certainly cannot specify all the possible solutions in this article; however, I believe that expansion of dual-degree dental scientist training programs can only occur if interested students continue to pressure administrators to make opportunities accessible and feasible. At the same time, these administrators must continue to establish, support, and promote current and future programs.

The following are recommendations for all dental schools:

  1. If the school has an established program, appoint an administrator to manage all correspondence from interested students, including current matriculated students. The director of the program is not necessarily the best choice, as these may be individuals whose duties prevent them from cultivating a relationship with a potentially interested student. Once the administrator has answered the fundamental questions, the student could be passed to the dean/director for further discussion. One possibility might be to have a student champion of the program reply to initial requests; given the enthusiastic responses of the current trainees in my project, who better to sell the program than the committed current students?
  2. If there is a program, please provide current information about program structure and components on your website. While these programs are highly variable even among different students at the same institution, some basic information is very helpful. For example, the Medical University of South Carolina provides student testimonials to garner interest in its training program.13 Other useful information would answer these questions: Is there financial support? How many years will it take? Has anyone ever completed this program?
  3. If there is a program, consider multiple entry points, funding mechanisms, and alternative pathways to completing it. For example, the University of Washington Dental School receives funding from the Washington Dental Service for their current student. Could this model be used retroactively to pursue more senior dental students?
  4. If there is no program, please consider some of the other options available to students, and begin to recruit interested students from your current ranks or applicant pool. By working with other institutions, the NIDCR, and your own or other graduate schools, you may at the very least permit a student to create, manage, and establish a pilot training program. In the future, that program could serve as the model for other schools and students to follow.
  5. If there is no program, and there seems to be no way of creating such a program, publish a very clear mission statement for your incoming and current students. If your focus is clinical training only, that should be the consistent message throughout the application process and described on your website.


   Acknowledgments
 
I want to thank Drs. Anthony M. Iacopino, Thomas B. Taft, Denis P. Lynch, and Bruce J. Baum for not only their advice and editorial expertise in the preparation of this article, but their continued inspiration and support in the pursuit of my current path.


   Footnotes
 
Mr. Rogér is a Student in the Class of 2008, Marquette University School of Dentistry. Direct correspondence to him at Marquette University School of Dentistry, 1801 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53233; 215-200-6436 phone; 414-288-3586 fax; james.roger{at}mu.edu.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Weaver RG, Chmar JE, Haden NK, Valachovic RW. Dental school vacant budgeted faculty positions: academic year 2003–04. J Dent Educ 2005;69:296–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Edmunds RK. Strategies for making research more accessible to dental students. J Dent Educ 2005;69:861–3.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Baum BJ. Can biomedical science be made relevant in dental education? A North American perspective. Eur J Dent Educ 2003;7(2):49–55.[Medline]
  4. Baum BJ. Clinical research, dental education, and the NIH clinical research training program. J Dent Educ 1998;62(8):592–8.[Medline]
  5. Baum BJ. The absence of a culture of science in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 1997;1(1):2–5.[Medline]
  6. Weaver RG, Chmar JE, Haden NK, Valachovic RW. Annual ADEA survey of dental school seniors: 2004 graduating class. J Dent Educ 2005;69(5):595–619.[Free Full Text]
  7. Stashenko P, Niederman R, DePaola D. Basic and clinical research: issues of cost, manpower needs, and infrastructure. J Dent Educ 2002;66(8):927–38.[Medline]
  8. Baum BJ. Will dentistry be left behind at the healthcare station? J Am Coll Dent 2004;71(2):27–30.[Medline]
  9. Iacopino AM. The role of "research non-intensive" institutions within the global framework. J Dent Res 2004;83(4):276–7.[Free Full Text]
  10. Iacopino AM, Lynch DP, Taft T. Preserving the pipeline: a model dental curriculum for research nonintensive institutions. J Dent Educ 2004;68(1):44–9.[Abstract]
  11. At: www.nidcr.nih.gov/Funding/Training/DualDegreeProgramsT32.htm#contacts. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  12. At: uclasod.dent.ucla.edu/research/index.asp?id=517. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  13. At: dmstp.musc.edu/. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  14. At: www.dental.umaryland.edu/admissions/ddsphd/. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  15. At: www.sdm.buffalo.edu/programs/postgrad/ddsphd.html. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  16. At: dent.osu.edu/research/student_research.php. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  17. At: grad.uchc.edu/dmd_phd/dmdphd_intro.html. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  18. At: dentistry.umkc.edu/bec_student/DDSProgram.htm. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  19. At: www.db.uth.tmc.edu/student-acad/default.htm. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  20. At: dental.uthscsa.edu/educprog/advdual.html. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  21. At: www.llu.edu/llu/dentistry/admissions/admitinfo.html#anchor68628. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  22. At: www.mcg.edu/careers/oralbio.htm. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  23. At: dentistry.uic.edu/admissions/dds/dds.htm. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  24. At: dentalschool.umdnj.edu/students/prospective/admissions/dual-degree.htm. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  25. At: www.dental.upenn.edu/academic/dual-degree.htm. Accessed: February 28, 2006.
  26. Goodacre C, Loveless W. Dental faculty recruitment at Loma Linda University School of Dentistry. J Calif Dent Assoc 2005;33(10):787–92.[Medline]
  27. Werb SB, Matear DW. Implementing evidence-based practice in undergraduate teaching clinics: a systematic review and recommendations. J Dent Educ 2004;68(9):995–1003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
J. M. Roger
The Academic Dental Careers Fellowship Program: A Pilot Program to Introduce Dental Students to Academia
J Dent Educ., April 1, 2008; 72(4): 438 - 447.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
J. M. Roger, M. M.H. Wehmeyer, and M. S. Milliner
Reflections on Academic Careers by Current Dental School Faculty
J Dent Educ., April 1, 2008; 72(4): 448 - 457.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
J. A. Horst
Bootstrapping Student Publication in the JDE: An ADEA Council of Students Initiative
J Dent Educ., October 1, 2007; 71(10): 1265 - 1266.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 Rogér, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rogér, J. M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS