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


     

J Dent Educ. 71(4): 450-462 2007
© 2007 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 Iacopino, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Iacopino, A. M.

Perspectives

The Influence of "New Science" on Dental Education: Current Concepts, Trends, and Models for the Future

Anthony M. Iacopino, D.M.D., Ph.D.

Key words: dental education, dental curriculum, research, scholarship, science integration


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Recent models for integration...
 Conclusions
 References
 
Advances in all aspects of science and discovery continue to occur at an exponential rate, leading to a wealth of new knowledge and technologies that have the potential to transform dental practice. This "new science" within the areas of cell/ molecular biology, genetics, tissue engineering, nanotechnology, and informatics has been available for several years; however, the assimilation of this information into the dental curriculum has been slow. For the profession and the patients it serves to benefit fully from modern science, new knowledge and technologies must be incorporated into the mainstream of dental education. The continued evolution of the dental curriculum presents a major challenge to faculty, administrators, and external constituencies because of the high cost, overcrowded schedule, unique demands of clinical training, changing nature of teaching/assessment methods, and large scope of new material impacting all areas of the educational program. Additionally, there is a lack of personnel with adequate training/experience in both foundational and clinical sciences to support the effective application and/or integration of new science information into curriculum planning, implementation, and assessment processes. Nonetheless, the speed of this evolution must be increased if dentistry is to maintain its standing as a respected health care profession. The influence of new science on dental education and the dental curriculum is already evident in some dental schools. For example, the Marquette University School of Dentistry has developed a comprehensive model of curriculum revision that integrates foundational and clinical sciences and also provides a dedicated research/scholarly track and faculty development programming to support such a curriculum. Educational reforms at other dental schools are based on addition of new curricular elements and include innovative approaches that introduce concepts regarding new advances in science, evidence-based foundations, and translational research. To illustrate these reforms, the Marquette curriculum and initiatives at the University of Connecticut and the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio dental schools are described in this article, with recognition that other dental schools may also be developing strategies to infuse new science and evidence-based critical appraisal skills into their students’ educational experiences. Discussion of the rationale, goals/objectives, and outcomes within the context of dissemination of these models should help other dental schools to design approaches for integrating this new material that are appropriate to their particular circumstances and mission. For the profession to advance, every dental school must play a role in establishing a culture that attaches value to research/discovery, evidence-based practice, and the application of new knowledge/technologies to patient care.

During the twentieth century, the practice of dentistry remained relatively static. New products and technologies were introduced at a rate that allowed dentists to provide effective and efficient patient care using the procedures acquired in dental school, and they were able to complete their practice careers incorporating few if any new products, materials, techniques, and/or office equipment. The arrival of the twenty-first century has suddenly forced on dentistry a new paradigm regarding expected standards for state-of-the-art patient care. Traditional methods and procedures that have served the profession well are being questioned within the context of evidence-based rationales and emerging information/technologies. Although there are no specific data or studies to support the notion that dental graduates and established practitioners are resistant to change and incorporation of new technologies, it is generally accepted that most new practitioners use the products and technologies they were exposed to and worked with in their dental training and postgraduate residencies. For many established practitioners, any new technology that could be perceived as disrupting or interfering with customary office routines is likely to be disregarded. In a busy office, especially a solo practice, any interference with traditional patient treatment schedules is assumed to be economically unacceptable. Thus, it is likely that practitioners believe they cannot stop treating patients to adopt new technologies or learn new procedures. The problem with this mind-set is that it precludes the use of new products and technologies that would allow dentists to treat larger numbers of patients more efficiently, and perhaps more effectively, despite the time required to learn and incorporate these innovations into their practices.

New science and technologies are already making their way into all aspects of dental practice and have changed traditional approaches to diagnostics, risk assessment, prevention, and many procedures in clinical dentistry. These new science advances are primarily directed toward connective tissue biophysics/ mechanics, tissue engineering, and the large areas of biotechnology (gene therapy, drug delivery, transport dynamics), molecular engineering (macromolecular structure, protein structure, and molecular therapies), informatics (patient management/record systems, data mining/management applications, and simulation/computer-assisted learning environments), and biomaterials (biocompatibility, bioengineering applications of polymers, biomimetics, implant materials, and nanotechnology of dental materials).

For example, there are now commercially available kits related to diagnosis, risk assessment, and prognosis for caries/periodontal disease based on genetic polymorphisms, biomarkers, and principles of cell biology.1,2 In fact, the recent development of saliva as a diagnostic medium has placed dentistry at the forefront of monitoring systemic health and disease.3 The application of genomics/proteomics to diagnostic tests and preventive measures requires that students and practitioners receive the necessary knowledge related to microbial/human genetics and the current principles of molecular medicine.4 Given the current lack of genetics instruction in dental education, this will require significant restructuring of dental curricula and faculty development programs.5 Within the field of restorative dentistry, the tremendous advances in biomaterials research have led to the current availability of esthetic posterior adhesive restorations, ushering the profession into the "postamalgam era."6 It has been clearly established that this new biomimetic approach to restorative dentistry is possible through the use of composite resins/porcelains and the generation of a hard tissue bond. The development of these nanomaterials has moved nanotechnology from its theoretical foundations into mainstream practice, and there are now many examples of commercially available products demonstrating the scope of further applications of such technology.7

In the area of dental informatics, the application of computer and information sciences to improve dental research, education, and practice has been particularly noteworthy. Many dental schools have developed sophisticated simulation laboratories that take advantage of virtual reality technologies to teach preclinical skills, and the use of electronic teaching tools and learning environments (CD-ROM or web-based) has increased dramatically.8,9 Although today’s dental students are entering the educational program with unprecedented computer literacy, many dental faculty require significant training in order to take full advantage of current computer-aided simulation and instruction capabilities.10,11 Most dental schools have already implemented some form of electronic paperless records, patient management systems, and digital imaging techniques. Although this technology has the ability to revolutionize patient care through rapid and efficient management of large amounts of clinical information, for it to be useful, the technology must be understood by the end users (students, faculty, and practicing clinicians). At the present time, many practitioners do not exhibit a high degree of computer literacy and are not using currently available informatics technologies to their full potential.12

The use of computer and imaging technology is rapidly changing the practice of orthodontics through computer-assisted appliances for tooth movement (InvisalignTM computer-generated therapy).13 Newly available digital imaging methods that reveal minute details and enhance discrimination have added a sophisticated level of reliability/predictability to implant procedures.14,15 Recent improvements in computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) for indirect restorations now provide for replication and digitization of the complex topography of tooth structure.16 Over the last several years, CAD-CAM techniques have transitioned from the domain of the unreliable to mainstream practice, providing better mechanical properties, improved marginal integrity, and enhanced esthetics compared to traditional indirect techniques. Today’s more reliable CAD-CAM techniques, some of which may reduce the number of patient visits, are available for the production of a wide range of ceramic restorations.

Scientific and technological advancements that generate new knowledge will continue to occur at unprecedented rates. Future advances will be made possible through emerging interdisciplinary collaborations and thought processes. Thus, significant curricular changes will be necessary to educate a new group of dental professionals who will effectively use interdisciplinary research findings to solve clinical problems and apply new technological advances to the oral health environment. In order to maintain its status as a respected scientifically based health profession, dentistry must appreciate and incorporate these advances within its education and patient care systems. The continued evolution of the dental profession will depend on the discipline’s ability to translate the new science into integrated interdisciplinary services in clinical settings.17 To ensure the continued viability of the profession, it is the responsibility of the dental education sector to facilitate the development of institutional infrastructures that are responsive to and supportive of scientific and technological advances. At the very least, faculty and students must become sophisticated consumers of research and utilize scholarly approaches to evidence-based paradigms in their clinical patient management.

Those outside of dental education may assume that such health professions education/training programs regularly transfer new knowledge and clinical applications of new technologies into their curricula; however, those within dental education realize that scientific advances usually experience a slow assimilation into the dental curriculum.18,19 Dental education in the United States has traditionally been characterized by discipline-based, lecture-style teaching that emphasizes technical expertise,20,21 with insufficient attention paid to the development of critical thinking/problem-solving skills and redesign of content/teaching approaches, thus resulting in a stagnant, overcrowded curriculum.22,23 Furthermore, graduates do not have an appreciation for the application/importance of research and discovery to patient care activities and are not adequately prepared to embrace interdisciplinary technology-based education/training and informational resources critical to lifelong learning and professional growth.24–26

There are a variety of opinions regarding the future role of new science and research/scholarship in dental education.25–30 Some contend that current curricula and research/scholarly training experiences maintain an adequate number of research/scholarly enterprises to develop new knowledge, disseminate new advances/technologies, and translate that information into patient care. However, recent approaches have maintained narrowly focused definitions of the perceived importance of research/scholarly activity, the purpose of research, strategies for increasing the number of future dental researchers/educators, and methods for producing graduates who incorporate evidence-based philosophies into their practices.26,30 Furthermore, most would admit that some potentially serious problems have developed including insufficient 1) numbers of current and future research/ scholarly dental faculty; 2) integration of dental research into the larger world of science; 3) application of new science to clinical practice settings; and 4) acceptance/ownership of research findings by the dental community.25–30 To date, there are no data available to determine the degree to which the current educational system has contributed to these problems.

Historically, approaches to support new science and research/scholarship have favored accomplished investigators and established infrastructures within research-intensive institutions.26,29,30 Dental schools designated as research non-intensive are usually associated with smaller universities, have institutional missions emphasizing teaching/service, often lack resources required for developing an infrastructure that supports elite research programs, and are unable to sustain a critical mass of experienced faculty actively engaged in research and scholarly pursuits. Within these cultures, faculty have limited time to pursue scholarly activities because a faculty-intensive teaching curriculum dominates the environment.31 As a result, research endeavors at these schools have been largely ignored, creating a large cadre of disenfranchised faculty and students with no ability or desire to contribute to the overall agenda related to the infusion of science and discovery into the dental curriculum and patient care activities.

The present paradigm of dental education severely limits the ability to restructure the process to support infusion of new science due to an overcrowded curriculum, lack of integration of biomedical/clinical sciences, and a clinical component that operates in an environment completely removed from research/scholarly enterprises.26,30 Within this context, new advances/technologies and the overall activity of research/scholarship become an afterthought or an arena reserved for a cloistered group of designated academic faculty. This traditional model must experience a paradigm shift, not only to increase the number of participants in science/scholarship, but also to enhance access, acceptance, and applicability of the science/scholarship. For the profession to advance, every dental school must play a role in establishing a culture that attaches value to research/discovery, evidence-based practice, and the application of new knowledge/technologies to patient care.32


   Recent Models for Integration of New Science into the Dental Curriculum
Top
 Abstract
 Recent models for integration...
Conclusions
 References
 
This section reviews the curricular strategies developed by three dental schools to incorporate new science and evidence-based practice skills into students’ educational experiences. These are intended to serve as models and stimulate thinking about curriculum formats that will facilitate integration of scientific advances into dental education and enhance the overall focus on research and scholarship.

Marquette University School of Dentistry
The Marquette University School of Dentistry (MUSoD) began the process of completely restructuring its dental curriculum in 1999. Over the last eight years, this process has resulted in significant changes that have produced a dynamic, nontraditional educational program that continues to evolve.32,33 The first phase of the transition involved 1) elimination of outdated or repetitive content; 2) reduction of traditional lecture-based, discipline-specific courses; 3) integration of basic biomedical, behavioral, and clinical sciences content into appropriately sequenced four-year educational tracks; 4) implementation of case-based rounds and facilitated discussions using clinical and biomedical correlates for continuous reinforcement of key concepts; and 5) establishment of early clinical experiences and community-based experiential learning opportunities. This comprehensive effort was partially funded by the United States Department of Education through the Fund for Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (DOE FIPSE program).33

The second phase of the transition involved development of a dedicated curricular track providing continuous exposure to new science concepts and applications as well as student research/scholarly activity throughout all four years of dental education. This track represented mandatory hours of didactic time exposing students to topics not traditionally included in dental curricula. Additionally, students were provided with customized flexible schedules to participate in elective "hands-on" mentored research/scholarly experiences at local, national, and international sites including linkages to certificate, M.S., and Ph.D. programs. New curricular elements were designed to foster an appreciation of research/ discovery, an interest in academic/research careers, and the application of new knowledge and biomedical/clinical advances to patient care. This effort was partially supported by the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) R25 Oral Health Research Curriculum Grant.32

The present-day MUSoD curriculum is illustrated in Figure 1Go. MUSoD maintains a relatively small faculty (forty-five full-time faculty for a class size of eighty students) and is a traditional research non-intensive institution with a prominent teaching and community service mission along with a teacher-scholar faculty model. To increase the emphasis on research/scholarship, enable the application of new advances to clinical practice, and create the conditions for such a significant change to occur in the educational program, the faculty needed to be prepared and trained to support the new curriculum. Thus, it is important to note that DOE and NIDCR funding was also used to support a wide array of faculty development activities that provided skill sets required to deliver integrated biomedical/clinical content; research-oriented, evidence-based approaches to dental education; and translational case-based teaching methods emphasizing the application of new science/technologies to patient care.


Figure 1
View larger version (14K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. The new Marquette curriculum circa 2007

Note: There are nine educational tracks (1–9) that contain content from various disciplines. The tracks are structured to present material that is sequenced both vertically and horizontally to support early clinical activity and reinforce foundational concepts in clinical settings. The research/scholarly track (track 7) provides twenty contact hours of information for all students during each semester over the entire four-year curriculum (160 total contact hours). For all eligible students, time for the mentored research/scholarly experience is taken from the other tracks through customized scheduling based on student academic performance and clinical abilities (students may pursue a one-to-three-month activity in each of the four years). The case-based dental rounds (track 9) are used to integrate material from all other tracks and emphasize applications of new science to patient care.

 
The dedicated research/scholarly curriculum track was implemented by identifying areas within each semester where didactic content could be inserted. New material insertions did not add additional hours to the existing curriculum; rather, existing material was streamlined to create room for all new material. For each semester in each of the four years (D1–D4), twenty hours of time are allotted for content related to research and scholarship. These content areas provide dental students with information and perspectives not traditionally included in dental curricula including the following: 1) careers in dental research and academia; 2) postgraduate and advanced education/training opportunities; 3) informatics and information resources; 4) evaluating scientific literature and scientific writing; 5) research design; 6) research ethics/integrity; 7) biostatistics; 8) genetic testing/risk assessment; 9) evidence-based dentistry; and 10) recent applications of biomedical/clinical science to practice. These topics, sequenced to provide a logical progression, are delivered by faculty trained through a series of formal faculty development programs described below. Teaching approaches consist primarily of presentations and facilitated discussions for the D1/D2 years and case-based rounds and structured literature reviews for the D3/D4 years. A detailed listing of the didactic content for the twenty curricular hours of each semester in the D1–D4 years is provided in Table 1Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Research/scholarly track didactic curriculum outline
 
In conjunction with the didactic portion of the dedicated research/scholarly track, MUSoD has developed a broad framework of hands-on mentored student experiences at local, national, and international sites. These experiences are defined very broadly, including traditional biomedical, clinical, and translational research as well as educational research, certificate/advanced degree programs, and topical/evidence-based reviews. The mentored research/scholarly experiences are available to all eligible students who are in good academic standing and maintaining acceptable clinical progress and are individually structured for each student so that students are provided with a "customized flexible schedule" that facilitates their participation without hardship or penalty. Participation in mentored experiences is designed to be part of the normal curricular time so that the overall educational program has not been lengthened. Students are permitted to access mentored experiences for up to three months each year; thus, students can complete up to one year of such experiences during their four-year educational program. Those students completing mentored research experiences are expected to participate in monthly research seminars or journal clubs, produce abstracts and posters for the annual MUSoD Student Research Day, represent MUSoD at national/international student research symposia, and present their work at the annual American Dental Education Association (ADEA), American Association for Dental Research (AADR), or International Association for Dental Research (IADR) meetings. Additionally, all students are encouraged to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals.

The highlight of this component of the curriculum track is an interinstitutional D.D.S.-Ph.D. program developed with the University of Rochester Center for Oral Biology. This unique program allows Marquette dental students to begin their Ph.D. studies with three-month research rotations each summer. During these summer rotations, students are also able to complete clinical activities, so that they maintain their class standing and complete the D.D.S. program within the normal four-year period. The entire fourth year of dental school is completed at Rochester with concurrent Ph.D. coursework, research, and clinical activity. Students graduate with their dental class and return to Rochester for an additional one to two years to complete the Ph.D. Financial incentives are provided throughout the program including $6,000 for each summer, fourth-year tuition coverage, and a $22,000 stipend for each additional Ph.D. year. The funding sources for stipends and tuition support are derived from the Marquette R25 and Rochester T32 NIH-NIDCR grant awards.

Development and implementation of a comprehensive faculty development initiative were related to critical components of the overall curriculum reform and MUSoD-designed and -delivered faculty development activities that support the new curriculum. The first phase was designed to provide programming that allowed the faculty to identify and appreciate key scientific, biomedical, behavioral, and clinical concepts that should be included in the curriculum tracks and needed to be reinforced through inclusion in case-based rounds and one-on-one teaching opportunities on the clinic floor. Introduction of the concepts involved in utilizing evidence-based decision-making strategies were included in this phase of the faculty development activities. The training was delivered interactively using group learning activities based on actual clinical dental cases; this provided an opportunity for faculty to review the biomedical and clinical science concepts that are crucial to an adequate diagnosis/treatment plan. These modules were supplemented with seminars using unique cases and interactive discussions concerning critical scientific concepts present in the cases that were influential in diagnosis/treatment planning decisions. Additionally, behavioral sciences and interdisciplinary considerations that impacted comprehensive patient management were incorporated into the cases, along with discussions of complex medical histories and treatment settings as well as use of patient scenarios featuring varying levels of debilitation/function, social/socioeconomic circumstances, and ethnic/cultural considerations.

The second phase of faculty development activities consisted of opportunities to develop instructional/teaching skills in research-oriented areas. These opportunities consisted of 1) development of skills necessary to effectively lead small group, case-based seminars involving use of an evidence-based protocol including specifically how to conduct/facilitate an effective dental rounds session; 2) use of technology in teaching and development of electronic learning environments including instruction on utilizing PowerPoint presentations, preparing and delivering courses through use of Internet tools/software packages, and using web-based information resources for instruction; 3) one-on-one teaching skills to enhance clinical learning, including appropriate questioning strategies designed to prompt students to recognize and solve patient treatment issues applying appropriate biomedical, behavioral, and clinical science concepts; and 4) development/ implementation of assessment approaches for case-based, practically applied research/scholarly curriculum track components. Thus far, this training has comprised twenty-eight formal activities consisting of self-study modules combined with seminars and workshops. A detailed listing of the faculty development activities completed during the curriculum reform process is provided in Table 2Go.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Faculty development activities supporting the new curriculum at Marquette University School of Dentistry
 
In addition to these institutional activities, MUSoD established a relationship with the Medical College of Wisconsin, securing two permanent training slots within its existing K30 Clinical Research Training Program. This two-year NIH-funded program supports training of clinical research scholars and is intended to increase the number of research-active MUSoD faculty who can serve as mentors for student research experiences. The program provides MUSoD faculty with an enriched academic environment to enhance development of clinical research careers through individual 1) mentoring for research and career development; 2) instruction relative to clinical research skills; and 3) assistance in identification of and access to research-related resources, research-related publications, and development of a research proposal that is submitted to an appropriate external funding agency. The K30 program uses a guided apprenticeship model and experienced faculty mentors to facilitate development of clinical research skills. The core curriculum addresses critical competencies necessary for success in clinical research such as content knowledge, methodological skills, research management skills, and socialization to the research environment. Medical College resources associated with this training program include a vigorous Clinical Research Center and highly funded investigators engaged in multidisciplinary clinical research/laboratory-based training programs.

The new MUSoD curriculum model significantly changed the culture of a research non-intensive dental school, creating a supportive environment for research/scholarship, increasing academic productivity, and altering the attitudes of faculty/students with regard to new science and its place in dental education and practice. Significant increases were demonstrated in 1) number of students participating in research/scholarship, attending national meetings, acquiring research awards, publishing manuscripts, pursuing advanced training/degrees, and expressing interest in academic/research careers; 2) number of faculty participating in development activities, publishing manuscripts, and mentoring students; and 3) institutional credibility within the university, supportive infrastructure for research/scholarship, and cultural expectations for academic excellence. Table 3Go illustrates some comparisons made using baseline data prior to the new curriculum and data collected in 2006.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Student, faculty, and institutional data
 
University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine
The University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine (UConn) has developed a unique program element in "Biodontics" to introduce new science concepts related to translational research.34 The goal of the new curricular element is to move recent discoveries and knowledge in molecular biology, biotechnology, and informatics more efficiently from scientists and inventors to dental practitioners and the patients they serve. The UConn Biodontics program applies the new science to clinical dentistry through training of dental students, dental residents, and dental school faculty in the best use of scientific and technological advances to improve patient care. The rationale for exposing dental students, residents, and faculty to this wide range of fields is to prepare them for managing dental practices that incorporate new technologies at a faster rate. This supports the overall national agenda by promoting an active, expanding profession that is adaptable and accountable to new technologies and procedures, thereby improving the general oral health of the public.

The Biodontics program promotes innovations in oral health through a specific educational program focused on the research and development of products, technologies, and equipment. At the dental student level, the material is delivered through presentations/ discussions scheduled within the curriculum, along with a special eight-week elective summer course. The Biodontics material is provided by faculty, business leaders, entrepreneurs, management executives, scientists, architects, and dental manufacturers. This course is also open to dental students from other schools. At the graduate level, a structured fellowship provides opportunities for interaction with research faculty, representatives of the dental industry, entrepreneurs, and practitioners including hands-on experience with state-of-the-art technologies. As part of the program, fellows develop educational, translational research, and clinical trials programs designed to integrate basic science discoveries with clinical applications. New technologies such as probiotics, dental lasers, and electronic patient record systems were included in the program to offer a wide range of experiences.

The highest level of instruction within the Biodontics program is a formal residency that provides a certificate after two years of training, including advanced coursework in health management, public policy, integrated biological sciences (biotechnology, bioinformatics, bioethics, and genetics), methods of health research, technology transfer processes, technological innovations and technology commercialization strategies, and leadership/entrepreneurship. The goal of the Biodontics residency is to uniquely integrate basic and clinical research findings with clinical training and incorporate contemporary developments in biotechnology (molecular biology, genomics, informatics, bioengineering, and nanotechnology) with clinical dentistry.

Assessment of the impact of the UConn Biodontics program has demonstrated that incorporating new science concepts within the context of activities that can be translated to clinical practice is effective in stimulating students, residents, and faculty to use thought processes that apply new knowledge and discovery to patient care.34 The need for educational approaches that emphasize the application of research to patient care and facilitate student entry into clinical research training programs has recently been documented.35–38

University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Dental School
The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Dental School recently initiated a curriculum redesign project intended to infuse an appreciation of new science at all levels of the curriculum (Dr. John Rugh, personal communication). The approach involves preparation of Critically Appraised Topic summaries (CATs)39 by students, residents, and faculty for clinical questions that arise pertinent to patient care and the development of a searchable online database (library) of high-quality, informative CATs that have been subjected to a peer review process. A CAT is a critical assessment of the available evidence that addresses a clinical question.40–43

The CATs database will be regularly reviewed and updated by a panel of reviewers comprised of dental school faculty and alumni practitioners under coordination of a CATs library manager and will be used to disseminate evidence-based information and promote transfer of research findings into patient care at the dental school and in the community. The CATs contain the basic foundational and evidence-based information that applies new science to clinical practice. A key component of the program is the collaborative involvement of dental students, graduate residents, faculty, and private practitioners in CATs preparation and review. This provides a mechanism to expose students, faculty, residents, and practicing dentists to recent scientific discoveries and the best clinical research on issues of high clinical relevance. Dental students write CATs in 75 percent of the clinical courses pertinent to various types of oral health problems and therapeutic approaches; residents also write CATs in six postgraduate dental education programs. The project includes a formal faculty development program on evidence-based practice emphasizing the preparation and use of CATs. The overarching goal is to promote an appreciation of new science and increase the probability that this information will be integrated into the dental curriculum and private practice settings. The searchable CATs database will be made available to all practicing dentists and ultimately to the public to help increase the rate of new science transfer to patient care.

To institutionalize the CATs curriculum component, course objectives in all four years of the curriculum have been revised to include competency in preparing CATs (asking focused questions, searching for the best evidence, critical appraisal, writing summaries, and integrating new knowledge into clinical care decisions) and other facets of evidence-based practice. The CATs curriculum component will also be coordinated with existing advanced dental student training and predental student outreach programs to enhance interest in dental research and increase the flow of students into these programs and potentially into academic careers in the oral health sciences. It is anticipated that the new curricular element will stimulate a deeper appreciation of new science, enhance skills associated with critical appraisal of the literature, promote evidence-based approaches to patient care, and foster more rapid integration of research findings into both the dental education program and private dental practice. Assessment strategies will include evaluating the impact of the project on 1) student, resident, and faculty attitudes regarding evidence-based practice; 2) student, resident, and faculty ability to utilize skills associated with CATs and implement evidence-based practice approaches; and 3) clinical instruction strategies used by faculty when working with students.


   Conclusions
Top
 Abstract
 Recent models for integration...
 Conclusions
References
 
The three models described in this article represent curricular changes and educational approaches that support research/scholarship, evidence-based analysis, and inclusion of new science in dental education and practice. These models are intended to illustrate different methods being used to achieve the goal of infusing new science into the educational experience of dental students. It is recognized that other dental schools, not described here, may be employing similar strategies or may have developed alternative ways to achieve this goal. Incorporating learning experiences that provide students with greater exposure to research and evidence-based practice represents an emerging area of educational reform that has been negatively perceived by most dental faculty.44 These models can be classified as disruptive innovations in dental education in that they have the potential for establishing new consumer bases for the science and technology product.45 These approaches make the new science available to a large population of students and clinical faculty who may be motivated to apply new knowledge and technologies to patient care. As additional institutions adopt some of these approaches, this will stimulate further changes in dental education. Additionally, at the very least, this curricular approach will enlarge the cadre of individuals who can articulate the value of new science to the dental profession—a current priority of the recently created National Oral Health Advocacy Committee and National Advocacy Network of ADEA and the AADR.46 There have been previous recommendations for cultural change within dental schools based on nontraditional, cooperative educational alliances with strong research institutions to restructure the curriculum so that it improves academic vitality, supports infusion of new science, and trains the next generation of academicians/researchers.47,48 New curricular models will need to address the interdisciplinary integration of new science within the broad oral health environment.

The models described here also introduce a "hidden curriculum" that supports research/scholarly activity and the inclusion of new science in the daily fabric of the educational experience. It is important to note that, within these models at three U.S. dental schools, the hidden curriculum has received strong support from clinical and part-time faculty—role models who have a tremendous influence on dental students. A systematic review of the evidence related to strategies for teaching critical appraisal and evidence-based practice concepts by Coomarasamy and Khan in 2004 indicates that learner mastery of these skills occurs most effectively in the clinical context, not in the classroom, and that provider role modeling is essential.49 The significance of the hidden curriculum on student attitudes and behaviors has been previously reported, and the influence of clinical and part-time faculty cannot be overestimated within this context.50 Previous reports have emphasized the need for dental schools to integrate new science and research/scholarship into the curriculum so that they produce future leaders for the profession. It has been estimated that dental schools must engage 20 percent of their best and brightest students with enriched academic curricula for 20 percent of their educational program in order to accomplish this goal.48 Since the primary mission of most dental schools is to train competent clinicians, it is important to note that the Marquette model was developed in a research non-intensive institution that has historically focused on its educational mission.

Each dental school possesses unique characteristics and has differing resources that can be focused on the broad area of curriculum reform and incorporation of new science into the educational program. However, to support a national/international agenda related to maintaining the status of the dental profession, every dental school should play a part in establishing an infrastructure that attaches value to new science, research/scholarship, evidence-based practice, and the application of new knowledge and technologies to patient care.32 In order to accomplish this task, researchers, educators, and clinicians will have to work closely together. Thus, the true measure of success for all of these constituencies should be to continue to provide curricular models that demonstrate how all faculty can combine their efforts to address one of the most important current issues in dental education.


   Acknowledgments
 
The Marquette curriculum redesign project was supported by DOE FIPSE grant P116B011247 and NIH NIDCR grant R25 DE015282.


   Footnotes
 
Dr. Iacopino is Professor, Department of General Dental Sciences and Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, Marquette University School of Dentistry. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Anthony M. Iacopino, Marquette University School of Dentistry, 1801 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53233; 414-288-6089 phone; 414-288-3586 fax; Anthony.Iacopino{at}Marquette.edu.

This article is one in a series of invited contributions by members of the dental education community that have been commissioned by the ADEA Commission on Change and Innovation (CCI) in Dental Education to address the environment surrounding dental education and affecting the need for, or process of, curricular change. This article was written at the request of the ADEA CCI but does not necessarily reflect the views of ADEA, the ADEA CCI, or individual members of the CCI. The perspectives communicated here are those of the author.


   REFERENCES
Top
 Abstract
 Recent models for integration...
 Conclusions
 References
 

  1. Taba M, Kinney J, Kim AS, Giannobile WV. Diagnostic biomarkers for oral and periodontal diseases. Dent Clin North Am 2005; 49:551–71.[Medline]
  2. Kornman KS. Diagnostic and prognostic tests for oral diseases: practical applications. J Dent Educ 2005; 69:498–508.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Wong DT. Salivary diagnostics powered by nanotechnologies, proteomics, and genomics. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137:313–21.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Wright JT, Hart TC. The genome project: implications for dental practice and education. J Dent Educ 2002; 66: 659–71.[Abstract]
  5. Behnke AR, Hassell TM. Need for genetics education in U.S. dental and dental hygiene programs. J Dent Educ 2004; 68:819–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Magne P. Composite resins and bonded porcelain: the postamalgam era? J Calif Dent Assoc 2006; 34:135–47.[Medline]
  7. Ure D, Harris J. Nanotechnology in dentistry: reduction to practice. Dent Update 2003; 30:10–5.[Medline]
  8. Jasinevicius TR, Landers M, Nelson S, Urbankova A. An evaluation of two dental simulation systems: virtual reality versus contemporary non-computer-assisted. J Dent Educ 2004; 68:1151–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Hillenburg KL, Cederberg RA, Gray SA, Hurst CL, Johnson GK, Potter BJ. E-learning and the future of dental education: opinions of administrators and information technology specialists. Eur J Dent Educ 2006; 10: 169–77.[Medline]
  10. Greenwood SR, Grigg PA, Stephens CD. Clinical informatics and the dental curriculum: a review of the impact of informatics in dental care and its implications for dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 1997; 1:153–61.[Medline]
  11. Robinson MA. Issues and strategies for faculty development in technology and biomedical informatics. Adv Dent Res 2003; 17:34–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Schleyer T, Spallek H. Dental informatics: a cornerstone of dental practice. J Am Dent Assoc 2001; 32:605–13.
  13. Lagravere MO, Flores-Mir C. The treatment effects of Invisalign orthodontic aligners: a systematic review. J Am Dent Assoc 2005; 136:1724–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Du Tre F, Jacobs R, Styven S, van Steenberghe D. Development of a novel digital subtraction technique for detecting subtle changes in jawbone density. Clin Oral Invest 2006; 10:235–48.[Medline]
  15. Swennen GR, Schutyser F. Three-dimensional cephalometry: spiral multi-slice vs cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130:410–6.[Medline]
  16. Palin W, Burke FJ. Trends in indirect dentistry: CAD/CAM technology. Dent Update 2005; 32:566–72.[Medline]
  17. Oral health in America: a report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, 2000.
  18. Tedesco LA. Issues in dental curriculum development and change. J Dent Educ 1995; 59:97–147.[Abstract]
  19. Hendricson WD, Cohen PA. Future directions in dental school curriculum, teaching, and learning. In: Haden NK, Tedesco LA, eds. Leadership for the future: the dental school in the university. Washington, DC: American Association of Dental Schools, 1999:90–5.
  20. Glassman P, Meyerowitz C. Education in dentistry: preparing dental practitioners to meet the oral health needs of America in the twenty-first century. J Dent Educ 1999; 63: 615–25.[Abstract]
  21. Hendricson WD, Cohen PA. Oral healthcare in the 21st century: implications for dental and medical education. Acad Med 2001; 76:1181–206.[Medline]
  22. Tedesco LA. Curriculum change during post-IOM dental education. J Dent Educ 1996; 60:827–30.[Medline]
  23. Boyd LD. Reflections on clinical practice by first-year dental students: a qualitative study. J Dent Educ 2002; 66: 710–20.[Abstract]
  24. Baum BJ. The absence of a culture of science in dental education. Eur J Dent Educ 1997; 1:2–5.[Medline]
  25. Bertolami CN. Rationalizing the dental curriculum in light of current disease prevalence and patient demand for treatment: form versus content. J Dent Educ 2001; 65: 725–35.[Abstract]
  26. Bertolami CN. The role and importance of research and scholarship in dental education and practice. J Dent Educ 2002; 66:918–24.[Abstract]
  27. Schuler CF. Keeping the curriculum current with research and problem-based learning. J Am Coll Dent 2001; 68: 20–4.[Medline]
  28. Haden NK, Beemsterboer PL, Weaver RG, Valachovic RW. Dental school faculty shortages increase: an update on future dental school faculty. J Dent Educ 2000; 64: 657–73.[Abstract]
  29. Haden NK, Valachovic RW. The ADEA-NIDCR national research conference on putting science into practice: the critical role of dental schools. J Dent Educ 2002; 66: 912–7.[Medline]
  30. Stashenko P, Niederman R, DePaola D. Basic and clinical research: issues of cost, manpower needs, and infrastructure. J Dent Educ 2002; 66:927–38.[Medline]
  31. Dederich DN, Lloyd PM, Farmer CD, Geurink KV, Nadershahi NA, Robinson FG, et al. Perceptions of dental schools from within and outside the university. J Dent Educ 2004; 68:1163–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Iacopino AM. The role of "research non-intensive" institutions within the global framework. J Dent Res 2004; 83:276–7.[Free Full Text]
  33. Iacopino AM, Lynch DP, Taft T. Preserving the pipeline: a model dental curriculum for research non-intensive institutions. J Dent Educ 2004; 68:44–9.[Abstract]
  34. Rossomando EF, Benitez H, Janicki BW. Developing competency in research management, entrepreneurship, and technology transfer: a workshop course. J Dent Educ 2004; 68:965–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Baum BJ, Scott J, Greenspan JS, Park N, Ranney R, Schwarz E, Uoshima K. Global challenges in research and strategic planning. Eur J Dent Educ 2002; 6:179–85.[Medline]
  36. DePaola D, Holmstrup P, Hardwick K, Lamster IB, Rifkin R. Research and the dental student. Eur J Dent Educ 2002; 6:45–51.[Medline]
  37. Gordon SM, Heft MW, Dionne RA, Jeffcoat MA, Alfano MC, Valachovic RW, Lipton JA. Capacity for training in clinical research: status and opportunities. J Dent Educ 2003; 67:622–9.[Abstract]
  38. Murillo H, Albert RE, Snyderman R, Sung NS. Meeting the challenges facing clinical research: solutions proposed by leaders of medical specialty and clinical research societies. Acad Med 2006; 81:107–12.[Medline]
  39. Wyer PC. The critically appraised topic: closing the evidence transfer gap. Ann Emerg Med 1997; 30:639–41.[Medline]
  40. Taylor R, Reeves B, Ewings P, Binns S, Keast J, Mears R. A systematic review of the effectiveness of critical appraisal skills training for clinicians. Med Educ 2000; 34:120–5.[Medline]
  41. Parkes J, Hyde C, Deeks J, Milne R. Teaching critical appraisal skills in health care settings. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2001, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001270. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001270.
  42. 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]
  43. Pluye P, Grad RM, Dunikowski LG, Stephenson R. Impact of clinical information-retrieval technology on physicians: a literature review of quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies. Int J Med Inform 2005; 74:745–68.[Medline]
  44. Masella RS, Thompson TJ. Dental education and evidence-based educational best practices: bridging the great divide. J Dent Educ 2004; 68:1266–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Donoff RB. It is time for a new Gies report. J Dent Educ 2006; 70:809–19.[Free Full Text]
  46. Bresch JE, Luke GG, McKinnon MD, Moss MJ, Pritchard D, Valachovic RW. Today’s threat is tomorrow’s crisis: advocating for dental education, dental and biomedical research, and oral health. J Dent Educ 2006; 70:601–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Edmunds RK. Strategies for making research more accessible to dental students. J Dent Educ 2005; 69:861–3.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Herzberg MC, Griffith LG, Doyle MJ. Driving the future of dental research. J Dent Res 2006; 85:486–7.[Free Full Text]
  49. Coomarasamy A, Khan KS. What is the evidence that postgraduate teaching in evidence-based medicine changes anything? A systematic review. Br Med J 2004; 329:1017.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Masella R. The hidden curriculum: value added in dental education. J Dent Educ 2006; 70:279–83.[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


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
Educational Value of the UConn Biodontics Program: Students' Perspectives
J Dent Educ., February 1, 2008; 72(2): 129 - 130.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
New Opportunities for Dentistry in Diagnosis and Primary Health Care: Report of Panel 1 of the Macy Study
J Dent Educ., February 1, 2008; 72(2_suppl): 66 - 72.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
Curriculum and Clinical Training in Oral Health for Physicians and Dentists: Report of Panel 2 of the Macy Study
J Dent Educ., February 1, 2008; 72(2_suppl): 73 - 85.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Dent EducHome page
E. F. Rossomando and M. Moura
The Role of Science and Technology in Shaping the Dental Curriculum
J Dent Educ., January 1, 2008; 72(1): 19 - 25.
[Abstract] [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 Iacopino, A. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Iacopino, A. M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS