In this article, the Task Force on Student Outcomes Assessment of the American Dental Education Association's Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education describes the current status of student outcomes assessment in U.S. dental education. This review is divided into six sections. The first summarizes the literature on assessment of dental students' performance. Section two discusses catalysts, with a focus on problem-based learning, for development of new assessment methods, while the third section presents several resources and guides that can be used to inform selection of assessment techniques for various domains of competence. The fourth section describes the methodology and results of a 2008 survey of current assessment practices in U.S. dental schools. In the fifth section, findings from this survey are discussed within the context of competencybased education, the educational model for the predoctoral curriculum endorsed by the American Dental Education Association and prescribed by the Commission on Dental Accreditation. The article concludes with a summary of assessments recommended as optimal strategies to measure three components of professional competence based on the triangulation model. The survey of assessment practices in predoctoral education was completed by 931 course directors, representing 45 percent of course directors nationwide, from fifty-three of the fifty-six U.S. dental schools. Survey findings indicate that five traditional mainstays of student performance evaluation-multiple-choice testing, lab practicals, daily grades, clinical competency exams, and procedural requirements-still comprise the primary assessment tools in dental education. The survey revealed that a group of newer assessment techniques, although frequently identified as best practices in the literature and commonly used in other areas of health professions education, are rarely employed in predoctoral dental education.

Academic dentists and members of the practice community have been hearing, for more than a decade, that our educational system is in trouble and that the profession has lost its vision and may be wavering in the achievement of its goals. A core of consistently recommended reforms has framed the discussion of future directions for dental education, but as yet, most schools report little movement toward implementation of these reforms in spite of persistent advocacy. Provision of faculty development related to teaching and assessment strategies is widely perceived to be the essential ingredient in efforts to introduce new curricular approaches and modify the educational environment in academic dentistry. Analyses of the outcomes of efforts to revise health professions curricula have identiied the availability and effectiveness of faculty development as a predictor of the success or failure of reform initiatives. This article will address faculty development for purposes of enhancing teaching effectiveness and preparing instructors for potential new roles associated with curriculum changes. Its overall purpose is to provide information and insights about faculty development that may be useful to dental schools in designing professional growth opportunities for their faculty. Seven questions are addressed: 1) What is faculty development? 2) How is faculty development accomplished? 3) Why is faculty development particularly important in dental education? 4) What happens when faculty development does not accompany educational reform? 5) Why are teaching attitudes and behaviors so dificult to change? 6) What outcomes can be expected from faculty development? and 7) What does the available evidence tell us about the design of faculty development programs? Evidence from systematic reviews pertaining to the teaching of evidence-based dentistry, strategies for continuing professional education, and the Best Evidence in Medical Education review of faculty development outcomes are presented to answer this question: does faculty development enhance teaching effectiveness? Characteristics consistently associated with effective faculty development are described.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives Autoantibodies reactive with Ro52 are often found in sera of Sjögren’s syndrome (SS) patients. This study was undertaken to investigate the role of Ro52-induced immune responses in pathogenesis of SS. Methods New Zealand Mixed (NZM) 2758 mice were immunized with Ro52 in alum adjuvant. Control mice were immunized either with Maltose binding protein (MBP) or injected with alum alone. Mice were monitored for anti-Ro52 antibody, sialoadenitis and pilocarpine induced salivation. Antibody binding to salivary gland (SG) cells was analyzed in vivo and in vitro by immunofluorescence. Sera from immunized mice were passively transferred into untreated or alum injected NZM2758 mice. Results By day 30 post-immunization, Ro52 immunized mice generated immunoprecipitating anti-Ro52 antibodies and they had the maximum drop in saliva production. Both Ro52 immunized and control mice showed evidence of mild sialoadenitis. However, only Ro52 immunized mice had antibody deposition in their SG. Passive transfer of Ro52-immune sera induced SG dysfunction in recipient mice, only if the recipients were primed with alum. In vitro, antibodies from Ro52-immune sera were internalized by a SG cell line and this uptake was inhibited by Cytochalasin D treatment. Conclusion Our data shows for the first time that antibodies induced by Ro52 are capable of inducing SG dysfunction, and that this phenomenon is dependent on the activation of innate immunity. The mouse model described in this study implies that autoantibody deposition in the SG might be an important step in the induction of xerostomia and pathogenesis of SS.