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.

Background Establishing score points that reflect meaningful change from the patient perspective is important for interpreting patient-reported outcomes. This study estimated the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values of 2 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) Sports subscale within a foot and ankle orthopedic population. Methods Patients seen for foot and ankle conditions at an orthopedic clinic were administered the PROMIS Physical Function (PF) v1.2, the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) v1.1, and the FAAM Sports at baseline and all follow-up visits. MCID estimation was conducted using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Results A total of 3069 patients, mean age of 51 years (range = 18–94), were included. The MCIDs for the PROMIS PF ranged from approximately 3 to 30 points (median = 11.3) depending on the methods being used. The MCIDs ranged from 3 to 25 points (median = 8.9) for the PROMIS PI, and from 9 to 77 points (median = 32.5) for the FAAM Sports. Conclusions This study established a range of MCIDs in the PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, and FAAM Sports indicating meaningful change in patient condition. MCID values were consistent across follow-up periods, but were different across methods. Values below the 25th percentile of MCIDs may be useful for low-risk clinical decisions. Midrange values (eg, near the median) should be used for high stakes decisions in clinical practice (ie, surgery referrals). The MCID values within the interquartile range should be utilized for most decision making. Level of Evidence Level I, diagnostic study, testing of previously developed diagnostic measure on consecutive patients with reference standard applied.

Objective This study sought to utilise machine learning methods in artificial intelligence to select the most relevant variables in classifying the presence and absence of root caries and to evaluate the model performance. Background Dental caries is one of the most prevalent oral health problems. Artificial intelligence can be used to develop models for identification of root caries risk and to gain valuable insights, but it has not been applied in dentistry. Accurately identifying root caries may guide treatment decisions, leading to better oral health outcomes. Methods Data were obtained from the 2015‐2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and were randomly divided into training and test sets. Several supervised machine learning methods were applied to construct a tool that was capable of classifying variables into the presence and absence of root caries. Accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating curve were computed. Results Of the machine learning algorithms developed, support vector machine demonstrated the best performance with an accuracy of 97.1%, precision of 95.1%, sensitivity of 99.6% and specificity of 94.3% for identifying root caries. The area under the curve was 0.997. Age was the feature most strongly associated with root caries. Conclusion The machine learning algorithms developed in this study perform well and allow for clinical implementation and utilisation by dental and nondental professionals. Clinicians are encouraged to adopt the algorithms from this study for early intervention and treatment of root caries for the ageing population of the United States, and for attaining precision dental medicine.

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.Dr. Licari is Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry. Direct correspondence and requests for reprints to him at

On May 12, 2005, the inaugural meeting of the American Dental Education Association Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (ADEA CCI) was convened. Comprised of thought leaders representative of dental education and practice, the ADEA CCI published groundbreaking white papers that effectively helped bring dental education across the threshold of the 21st century. Twelve years later, a new ADEA CCI has been convened-ADEA CCI 2.0. The ADEA CCI 2.0 is a broad-ranging, strategically interconnected, flexible, and multifarious community of stakeholders situated within and across all facets of oral health education and practice. Whereas the first iteration of the ADEA CCI made the case for change regarding revisions of the dental curriculum and learning environment, the ADEA CCI 2.0 will focus on external domains that are having a global impact on the content and delivery of health care and health professions education and, ultimately, how health care benefits people. The principal work of the ADEA CCI 2.0 will be to create educational and implementation resources and opportunities for dental educators to contemplate, investigate, and ultimately define the future needs of their academic dental institutions in this constantly changing world.

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.

No abstract

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. . Reprints will not be available.