Journal of dental education
-
In 2004, a survey of the deans of U. S. and Canadian dental schools was conducted to determine the implant dentistry curriculum structure and the extent of incorporating implant dentistry clinical treatment into predoctoral programs. The questionnaire was mailed to the deans of the fifty-six dental schools in advance of the ADEA Implant Workshop conference held in Arizona in November 2004. ⋯ The fee for implants is 45 percent higher than a crown or a denture, with a range of 0-100 percent. Twenty-nine schools (85 percent) indicated that they did receive free components from implant companies, while five schools (15 percent) did not. The conclusions of this report are as follows: 1) most schools have advanced dental education programs; 2) single-tooth implant restorations are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 3) implant-retained overdenture prostheses are performed at the predoctoral level in most schools; 4) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for surgical implant placement in all schools that responded to the survey; 5) there is no predoctoral clinical competency requirement for implant prosthodontics in most schools that responded to the survey; 6) prosthodontic specialty faculty are often responsible for teaching implant prosthodontics at the predoctoral level; 7) periodontics and oral and maxillofacial faculty are commonly responsible for teaching implant surgery at the predoctoral level; 8) support from implant companies is common for dental schools, with most providing for implant components at discounted costs; and 9) there is a lack of adequately trained faculty in implant dentistry, which is a significant challenge in providing predoctoral students with clinical experience with dental implants.
-
Many North American dental schools face the challenge of replacing the majority of their "boomer generation" clinical instructors over the next ten years as this cohort of faculty reaches retirement age. Developing a new cadre of clinical instructors poses a substantial faculty development challenge: what instructional techniques should be integrated into routine educational practice by the dental faculty of the future, and what aspects of the clinical learning environment should be addressed to improve the overall quality of the experience for patients, students, and the new cohort of instructors? To gain insight that might guide faculty development for new clinical instructors and enhance understanding of the learning environment in dental school clinics, this study addressed the following question: what are dental students' perceptions of their learning experiences in the clinical setting? The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the clinical instruction from the perspectives of the actual "consumer" of dental education: the student. This consumers' perspective was provided by 655 junior, senior, and graduate dental students at twenty-one North American dental schools who completed the Clinical Education Instructional Quality Questionnaire (ClinEd IQ) in 2003-04. ⋯ Analysis of more than 1,000 written comments provided by these students indicated four areas of concern: 1) inconsistent and sometimes insensitive (patronizing, rude) feedback from faculty; 2) excessive amounts of noneducational "legwork" such as billing, patient scheduling, phone calling, completing paperwork, and performing other clinic operations tasks; 3) limited access to faculty because of insufficient numbers of instructors on the clinic floor or difficulty locating faculty when they were needed for coaching, work evaluation, and chart signatures; and 4) concerns about the strategies employed to meet procedural requirements that some students saw as ethically questionable. Junior, senior, and graduate dental students at twenty-one North American dental schools perceived that the strongest aspect of their clinical education was their relationship with the faculty, but also reported that the dental school clinic was often an inefficient learning environment that hindered their opportunity to develop clinical competency. Students also sensed that faculty shortages, a growing crisis for dental education, hindered their progress in the clinic and made learning less efficient.
-
This study evaluated interpersonal communication skills among third- and fourth-year dental students during two clinical communications training programs. Students participated in two clinical communications (CC) training sessions, each comprised of four encounters with patient instructors (PIs) who were trained to enact standardized patient scenarios. Scenarios in CC1 addressed straightforward patient care situations in dentistry (e.g., bridge adjustment), while CC2 added cultural sensitivity issues to the dental scenarios. ⋯ Performance scores at the start of CC2 were statistically lower than at the end of CC1, suggesting that performance wanes without practice. Student evaluations of the program were very positive. Interpersonal communication skills improved during this patient instructor program.
-
The American Dental Education Association's 2003-04 Survey of Clinic Fees and Revenue obtained data by which to report, by school, clinic revenue information per student. Fifty-one of the fifty-four dental schools that had third- and fourth-year students responded to the survey. The median revenue per third-year student was dollar 9,937. ⋯ Clinic revenue was also obtained for programs of advanced dental education. General Practice Residency programs generated the highest revenue per student at dollar 66,474, followed by programs of Advanced Education in General Dentistry at dollar 63,860. Other areas of the survey provided information regarding clinic fees by type of program, levels of uncompensated care by type of program, clinic revenue by source of payment, and dental school fees as a percent of usual and customary private practice fees.
-
This article examines the impact of financial trends in state-supported dental schools on full-time clinical faculty; the diversity of dental students and their career choices; investments in physical facilities; and the place of dentistry in research universities. The findings of our study are the following: the number of students per full-time clinical faculty member increased; the three schools with the lowest revenue increases lost a third of their full-time clinical faculty; more students are from wealthier families; most schools are not able to adequately invest in their physical plant; and more than half of schools have substantial NIH-funded research programs. ⋯ Now is the time to build the political consensus needed to develop new and more effective strategies to educate the next generation of American dentists and to keep dental education primarily based in research universities. The future of the dental profession and the oral health of the American people depend on it.