The traditional method for the delivery of didactic instruction and patient care in dental schools has come under ire from a number of sources over the past several years. The American Dental Education Association and others have outlined numerous issues impeding the swift progression of student learning through the dental curriculum. Declining state revenues allotted to dental education, the increasing shortage of dental faculty, and the management of student learning in an already overcrowded dental school curriculum have led to the investigation of strategies that address solutions to these and other shortcomings in the current milieu of dental education. To address these deiciencies, strategies for change have been suggested. This article describes the development, implementation, and assessment of a new dental school that addresses these and other challenges to the education of today's dental student, thus creating the Arizona Model. Following seven years of operation, outcomes analysis at the Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health has shown positive trends in controlling educational costs, a shift to a modular curriculum, increasing student clinical experiences, and, consistent with the mission of the school, producing dentists who are well prepared for dental public health service.

ObjectiveThe acquisition of motor skills is a key competency for the practice of dentistry, and innate abilities have been shown to influence motor performance. Thus, finding the most efficient manual dexterity tests may predict performance of dental students. The current study used the Bruininks–Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, to assess motor skills of first year (D1) and second year (D2) dental students.Materials and methodsThree fine motor subsets of the BOT‐2—fine motor precision, fine motor integration, and manual dexterity—were administered to D1 and D2 dental students in 2017 and 2018. The BOT‐2 subset scores of D1 students were compared with those of D2 students, who had preclinical dental experiences. For D2 students, we tested for correlations between BOT‐2 subset scores and performance scores in a preclinical operative dentistry course.ResultsNo differences were found between D1 and D2 students for any BOT‐2 subtest scores (all Ps > .09). No correlations were found between total scores of each BOT‐2 subtest and the operative dentistry course for D2 students (all Ps > .20).ConclusionsOur results suggested the BOT‐2 was not predictive of manual skills of dental applicants or preclinical dental students. Although we assumed students would perform well with instruction, practice, and feedback, we were unable to determine whether innate abilities influenced acquisition of manual dexterity skills. More research about the acquisition of technical clinical skills in dentistry is required.