The goal of interprofessional education (IPE) is to bring various professional groups together in the educational environment to promote collaborative practice and improve the health care of patients. Interest in IPE has been sparked by several factors in the health care system, including the increased awareness of oral-systemic connections, an aging population, the shift of the burden of illness from acute to chronic care, and lack of access to basic oral care. Increasingly, since the publication of the U.S. surgeon general's report in 2000, the dialogue surrounding IPE in dentistry has escalated. But how has dentistry changed regarding IPE since the report was released? This position paper argues that little has changed in the way dental students are taught and prepared to participate in IPE. The authors contend that academic dentistry and organized dentistry must take the lead in initiating and demanding IPE if dental students are to be prepared to work in the health care environment of the twenty-first century. Included are reasons why IPE is necessary and why dentistry must lead the conversation and participate in the solution to the oral health care crisis. It explores existing models and alternate approaches to IPE, barriers to implementation, and proposed strategies for academic institutions.

Purpose Promoter hypermethylation has been recently proposed as a mean for HNSCC detection in salivary rinses. In a prospective study of a high-risk population, we showed that EDNRB promoter methylation in salivary rinses is a useful biomarker for oral cancer and premalignancy. Experimental Design Using that cohort, we evaluated EDNRB methylation status and 8 additional genes. Clinical risk assessment by expert clinicians was performed and compared with biomarker performance in the prediction of premalignant and malignant disease. Methylation status of 9 genes was analyzed in salivary rinses of 191 patients by Quantitative methylation-specific PCR. Results HOXA9, EDNRB and DCC methylation were associated (p= 0.012; p<0.0001; p=0.0005) with premalignant or malignant disease. On multivariable modeling, histological diagnosis was only independently associated with EDNRB (p=0.0003) or DCC (p=0.004) methylation. A subset of patients received clinical risk classification (CRC) by expert clinicians based on lesion examination. CRC, DCC and EDNRB were associated with diagnosis of dysplasia/cancer on univariate (p=0.008; p=0.026; p=0.046) and multivariate analysis (p=0.012; p=0.037; p=0.047). CRC identified dysplasia/cancer with56% of sensitivity and 66% of specificity with a similar AUC (0.61, 95%CI=0.60-0.81) when compared to EDNRB and DCC combined AUC (0.60, 95%CI=0.51-0.69), sensitivity of 46% and specificity of 72%. A combination of EDNRB, DCC and CRC was optimal AUC (0.67, 95%CI=0.58-0.76). Conclusion EDNRB and/or DCC methylation in salivary rinses compares well to examination by an expert clinician in CRC of oral lesions. These salivary biomarkers may be particularly useful in oral premalignancy and malignancy screening in clinical care settings in which expert clinicians are not available