As dental schools continue to seek the most effective ways to provide clinical education for students, it is important to track the effects innovations have on students’ clinical experience to allow for quantitative comparisons of various curricula. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of three successive clinical curricula on students’ experience at one U.S. dental school. The three were a discipline‐based curriculum (DBC), a comprehensive care curriculum (CCC), and a procedural requirement curriculum plus externships (PRCE). Students’ clinic experience data from 1992 to 2013 were analyzed for total experience and in five discipline areas. Clinic experience metrics analyzed were patient visits (PVs), relative value units (RVUs), and equivalent amounts (EQAs). A minimum experience threshold (MET) and a high experience threshold (HET) were set at one standard deviation above and below the mean for the DBC years. Students below the MET were designated as low achievers; students above the HET were designated as high achievers. The results showed significant differences among the three curricula in almost all areas of comparison: total PVs, total EQAs, total RVUs, RVUs by discipline, and number of high and low achievers in total clinical experience and by discipline. The comprehensive care approach to clinical education did not negatively impact students’ clinical experience and in many cases enhanced it. The addition of externships also enhanced student total clinical experience although more study is needed to determine their effectiveness. The insights provided by this study suggest that the methodology used including the metrics of PVs, EQAs, and RVUs may be helpful for other dental schools in assessing students’ clinical experience.

No abstract

Caries indices, the basis of epidemiologic caries measures, are not easily obtained in clinical settings. This study’s objective was to design, test, and validate an automated program (Valid Electronic Health Record Dental Caries Indices Calculator Tool [VERDICT]) to calculate caries indices from an electronic health record (EHR). Synthetic use case scenarios and actual patient cases of primary, mixed, and permanent dentition, including decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT/dmft) and tooth surfaces (DMFS/dmfs) were entered into the EHR. VERDICT measures were compared to a previously validated clinical electronic data capture (EDC) system and statistical program to calculate caries indices. Four university clinician-researchers abstracted EHR caries exam data for 45 synthetic use cases into the EDC and post-processed with SAS software creating a gold standard to compare the ­VERDICT-derived caries indices. Then, 2 senior researchers abstracted EHR caries exam data and calculated caries indices for 24 patients, allowing further comparisons to VERDICT indices. Agreement statistics were computed among abstractors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Agreement statistics between the 2 final-phase abstractors and the VERDICT measures showed extremely high concordance: Lin’s concordance coefficients (LCCs) >0.99 for dmfs, dmft, DS, ds, DT, dt, ms, mt, FS, fs, FT, and ft; LCCs >0.95 for DMFS and DMFT; and LCCs of 0.92–0.93 for MS and MT. Caries indices, essential to developing primary health outcome measures for research, can be reliably derived from an EHR using VERDICT. Using these indices will enable population oral health management approaches and inform quality improvement efforts.

No abstract

The purpose of this article is to respond to Dr. Charles Bertolami's article “Why Our Ethics Curricula Don't Work” in the April 2004 issue of the Journal of Dental Education. This article analyzes the arguments put forth by Bertolami and challenges his assumptions and conclusions. Several examples are given of the ways in which our current ethics curricula do, in fact, work.