Search

Purpose/objectives The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic arguably represents the worst public health crisis of the 21st century. However, no empirical study currently exists in the literature that examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dental education. This study evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on dental education and dental students' experience. Methods An anonymous online survey was administrated to professional dental students that focused on their experiences related to COVID-19. The survey included questions about student demographics, protocols for school reopening and student perceptions of institutional responses, student concerns, and psychological impacts. Results Among the 145 respondents, 92.4% were pre-doctoral dental students and 7.6% were orthodontic residents; 48.2% were female and 12.6% students lived alone during the school closure due to the pandemic. Students' age ranged from 23 to 39 years. Younger students expressed more concerns about their emotional health (P = 0.01). In terms of the school's overall response to COVID-19, 73.1% students thought it was effective. The majority (83%) of students believed that social distancing in school can minimize the development of COVID-19. In general, students felt that clinical education suffered after transitioning to online but responded more positively about adjustments to other online curricular components. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted dental education. Our findings indicate that students are experiencing increased levels of stress and feel their clinical education has suffered. Most students appear comfortable with technology adaptations for didactic curriculum and favor masks, social distancing, and liberal use of sanitizers.

This review of U.S. dental schools' clinical curricula suggests that the basic structure of clinical education has not changed significantly in the past 60 years, although important developments include the introduction of competency-based education and community-based clinical education. Most dental schools still have a two-year preclinical curriculum and a two-year clinical curriculum, and most schools still operate a large clinical facility where students receive the bulk of their clinical education and assessment for graduation. In those clinics, dental students are the main providers of patient treatment, with faculty serving in supervisory roles. In addition, a major portion of the entire dental curriculum continues to be dedicated to student education on the restoration of a single tooth or replacement of teeth. This article was written as part of the project "Advancing Dental Education in the 21st Century."

Dental therapy is an accepted component of the dental profession in the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and in the state of Minnesota. There are also several states working to enact legislation to permit the practice of dental therapy. However, in the absence of nationally recognized educational standards, concerns have been raised relating to the lack of uniformity in dental therapy education. In 2010, a panel of academicians met and prepared a report on the principles, competencies, and curriculum for educating dental therapists. Still, there remained questions in regard to what the minimal educational standards should be for institutions that wish to sponsor dental therapy programs. A second panel was convened to address education standards. This paper describes the Panel's deliberations on three critical issues in developing the report: the length of the program and degree to be awarded; credentials of the program director; and the nature of supervision.

Surveys are the most common form of data-based article published in the Journal of Dental Education. The apparent ease with which they are conducted and the seeming simplicity of reporting results mask significant issues in sample design and performing maximally useful analyses. Four concerns are discussed here. First, it is demonstrated that results are a function of who, when, and where responses are sampled, each source making independent contributions. Second, absolute sample size is shown to be the most significant factor affecting precision in surveys, and the numbers of schools, respondents, and other sources of variance can be chosen to minimize survey imprecision. Third, response rate typically has negligible effect on precision and an uncertain effect on accuracy (freedom from bias). A technique, sample saturation, is explained that can be used to protect, to some degree, surveys from the effects of bias. Finally, suggestions are offered for reporting survey results in a visually meaningful fashion, and an appeal is made that recommendations associated with surveys not be published unless they are grounded in both data and well-developed theory. This analysis references a previously published survey on competency-based dental education to illustrate methodological points in concrete terms.

Competency-based dental education was introduced in 1993 and has proven to be a robust innovation, guiding curricular design, clinical education and evaluation, and accreditation. At the same time, it has been irregularly implemented and is understood in different ways. These paradoxes were explored in a survey of academic and clinical deans and chairs of departments of endodontics and restorative dentistry at U.S. and Canadian dental schools. It was confirmed that fewer than half of the respondents can identify the ADEA and ADA definition of competency. Significant differences were reported in the perceived understanding and value placed on competencies and their impact on dental education. Differences were also found to exist in evaluation practices and in how evaluation data are used to determine students' readiness for graduation. It is concluded that the openness of the competency concept is one reason for its longevity and usefulness in dental education.

For meaningful curriculum change to occur in dental schools, faculty must go through a process of new skills development that will prepare them to teach differently and to assess students differently than they have before. Curriculum change and the faculty development process must have the support of the dental school’s leadership and become a core value of the school’s culture.

The purpose of this article is to discuss how traditional dental school curricula are inconsistent with research in how learners learn. In the last ten years, there has been considerable discussion about the need for dental education reform, and innovative changes have occurred in the curricula of a number of U.S. dental schools. However, efforts in curriculum restructuring have been hindered by the lack of evidence that one specific curriculum design achieves outcomes superior to other designs. Moreover, there has been little discussion in the dental literature about how modern theories of learning can provide a sound rationale for change in dental education. Thus, it is important for those involved in curriculum reform to present the rationale for change based on the best available evidence. In this review, we summarize aspects of research on learning that seem applicable to dental education and outline ways in which curricula might be changed to become more consistent with the evidence.

In fall 2002 the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry implemented a Group Practice Comprehensive Care Clinical Education Curriculum. The primary responsibility for patient care has shifted in this comprehensive care curriculum from the students to the faculty and staff. Students have a primary responsibility for learning. This competency-based education curriculum utilizes a variety of student evaluation methods including self-evaluation, OSCE, and portfolio to verify competence. Formative evaluation methods are utilized in daily assessment of student performance. On-time graduation rates have increased from 60-70 percent to 96 percent, and regional board first-time pass rates have been maintained at 90+ percent. Overall predoctoral clinical productivity in the first full year of the program has increased by over 300,000 dollars.

In fall 2002, the ADEA Section on Comprehensive Care and General Dentistry conducted a survey of the predoctoral clinical curriculum models at sixty-four North American dental schools. Fifty-eight percent of the schools reported that most patient care is provided in a comprehensive care clinic setting, 22 percent reported that most patient care is provided in discipline-specific settings, and 20 percent reported a hybrid of comprehensive care and discipline-specific settings. While ten Primarily Discipline-Based (PD) schools have instituted new Primarily Comprehensive Care (PCC) or Hybrid clinical curricula since 1997, one PCC school has converted to a Hybrid model, and one PCC school has converted to a PD model. PCC curriculum models were frequently associated with the following institutional factors: more densely populated metropolitan areas; private institutional sponsorship; location within a university medical center; larger class size; and more students enrolled in advanced training at the school. Curriculum factors frequently associated with PCC models included the following: increased use of simulation technology: higher proportion of clinical/teaching track faculty; higher proportion of part-time faculty; higher proportion of generalist faculty; same faculty supervising both treatment planning and patient treatment; and use of competency exams as the main requirement for completion of the curriculum.

Surveys are the most common form of data-based article published in the Journal of Dental Education. The apparent ease with which they are conducted and the seeming simplicity of reporting results mask significant issues in sample design and performing maximally useful analyses. Four concerns are discussed here. First, it is demonstrated that results are a function of who, when, and where responses are sampled, each source making independent contributions. Second, absolute sample size is shown to be the most significant factor affecting precision in surveys, and the numbers of schools, respondents, and other sources of variance can be chosen to minimize survey imprecision. Third, response rate typically has negligible effect on precision and an uncertain effect on accuracy (freedom from bias). A technique, sample saturation, is explained that can be used to protect, to some degree, surveys from the effects of bias. Finally, suggestions are offered for reporting survey results in a visually meaningful fashion, and an appeal is made that recommendations associated with surveys not be published unless they are grounded in both data and well-developed theory. This analysis references a previously published survey on competency-based dental education to illustrate methodological points in concrete terms.

For meaningful curriculum change to occur in dental schools, faculty must go through a process of new skills development that will prepare them to teach differently and to assess students differently than they have before. Curriculum change and the faculty development process must have the support of the dental school's leadership and become a core value of the school's culture.

The purpose of this article is to discuss how traditional dental school curricula are inconsistent with research in how learners learn. In the last ten years, there has been considerable discussion about the need for dental education reform, and innovative changes have occurred in the curricula of a number of U.S. dental schools. However, efforts in curriculum restructuring have been hindered by the lack of evidence that one specific curriculum design achieves outcomes superior to other designs. Moreover, there has been little discussion in the dental literature about how modern theories of learning can provide a sound rationale for change in dental education. Thus, it is important for those involved in curriculum reform to present the rationale for change based on the best available evidence. In this review, we summarize aspects of research on learning that seem applicable to dental education and outline ways in which curricula might be changed to become more consistent with the evidence.

In fall 2002 the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry implemented a Group Practice Comprehensive Care Clinical Education Curriculum. The primary responsibility for patient care has shifted in this comprehensive care curriculum from the students to the faculty and staff. Students have a primary responsibility for learning. This competency-based education curriculum utilizes a variety of student evaluation methods including self-evaluation, OSCE, and portfolio to verify competence. Formative evaluation methods are utilized in daily assessment of student performance. On-time graduation rates have increased from 60-70 percent to 96 percent, and regional board first-time pass rates have been maintained at 90+ percent. Overall predoctoral clinical productivity in the first full year of the program has increased by over 300,000 dollars.

In fall 2002, the ADEA Section on Comprehensive Care and General Dentistry conducted a survey of the predoctoral clinical curriculum models at sixty-four North American dental schools. Fifty-eight percent of the schools reported that most patient care is provided in a comprehensive care clinic setting, 22 percent reported that most patient care is provided in discipline-specific settings, and 20 percent reported a hybrid of comprehensive care and discipline-specific settings. While ten Primarily Discipline-Based (PD) schools have instituted new Primarily Comprehensive Care (PCC) or Hybrid clinical curricula since 1997, one PCC school has converted to a Hybrid model, and one PCC school has converted to a PD model. PCC curriculum models were frequently associated with the following institutional factors: more densely populated metropolitan areas; private institutional sponsorship; location within a university medical center; larger class size; and more students enrolled in advanced training at the school. Curriculum factors frequently associated with PCC models included the following: increased use of simulation technology: higher proportion of clinical/teaching track faculty; higher proportion of part-time faculty; higher proportion of generalist faculty; same faculty supervising both treatment planning and patient treatment; and use of competency exams as the main requirement for completion of the curriculum.