Search

Purpose Concerns regarding the ethical justification for the use of single-encounter, procedure-based examinations on live patients for the licensure of dental hygienists and dentists in the United States persists despite decades of debate and publication on the subject. The purpose of this literature review was to summarize the specific ethical concerns and quantify recommendations in favor or against this examination methodology. Methods A population, intervention, control or comparison, outcome (PICO) question was developed to review the topic as follows: "For individuals receiving dental care as part of determination of candidates for competency and readiness for licensure, do patient-based licensure examinations, as compared to other assessment methods, violate or infringe upon ethical principles or ethical standards for health care or society?" An electronic search was performed in three databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Embase. Key search terms and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) included the following: ethics, clinical, competence, dental, dental hygiene, dentistry, education, licensure, live patient, and practice. Results Ethical concerns about the use of patient examinations have been published in the professional literature for over 35 years. Of the 29 selected or endpoint articles identified, 27 articles cited one or more ethical concerns relating to single-encounter patient-based examinations while 20 articles recommended the elimination of this type of examination with an additional 6 articles citing elimination as an option in resolving the ethical issues regarding this type of licensure examination. Conclusion The literature holds a predominant, prevailing professional opinion that single-encounter, procedure-based examinations on live patients presents significant ethical concerns and should be eliminated as a method in initial dental hygiene and dental licensure. The literature also suggests that state dental boards should initiate corrective regulatory or legislative actions to expeditiously end recognition of live patient examinations in their licensure processes., (Copyright © 2024 The American Dental Hygienists’ Association.)

The dental licensure exam in the United States has evolved over the past ten years, and two formats--the traditional format and curriculum integrated format--are now available for students to satisfy licensure requirements. The objective of this study was to examine the differences and relative merits of the two formats. A twenty-five-question survey was distributed to the fifty-seven U.S. dental schools at the time. The survey included both quantitative and discrete variables and followed a strategic sequential order. The first set of questions sought to determine what type of board preparatory/mock exam each dental school offered, and the next set of questions asked which licensure exam each school formally offered. The final questions were qualitative in nature and aimed to determine the school representatives' opinions about the curriculum integrated format versus traditional format. Of the fifty-seven schools contacted, thirty-seven agreed to participate (response rate=64.9 percent). Fourteen schools reported that they administer the traditional format only and twelve administer the curriculum integrated format only, while eleven offer both. Thirty-two schools offered mock board exams to their graduating students, and twenty-four of those said their mock exams were identical in format to the actual qualifying clinical exams offered at their institution. The respondents reported no significant advantage to preparing for the curriculum integrated format examination as compared to the traditional format examination with regards to number of clock hours taken from regular curriculum time. In reporting on this study, this article provides an overview of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two examination formats used for the dental licensure process in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to investigate the associations among several dental school admission criteria and several measures of dental school achievement. Data were collected for 2000-07 University of Iowa dentistry graduates, including five specific preadmission credentials and five specific measures of dental school achievement for each student. Pearson product moment correlations or Mann-Whitney U statistics were computed for the association of each of the ten variables with the nine others. The strongest correlation observed was between predental science grade point average (GPA) and overall predental GPA. Dental Admission Test (DAT) Academic Average was very strongly correlated with DAT Total Science, and both of these were each moderately correlated with DAT Perceptual Ability, predental science GPA, and overall predental GPA. Among the measures of dental school achievement, the strongest association was observed between National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) scores and dental school GPA. These were also moderately correlated with final clinical grade. All of the measures of dental school achievement were slightly stronger for candidates who passed the Central Regional Dental Testing Service (CRDTS) examination than for those who tailed that exam. Of the predental credentials considered, predental science GPA and overall predental GPA were the best predictors of dental school GPA. DAT Academic Average was the best predictor of NBDE scores. Although DAT Perceptual Ability was the best predictor of clinical competency at the time of graduation, these two variables were only weakly correlated. DAT Perceptual Ability scores and overall predental GPA were slightly higher for candidates who passed the CRDTS examination than for those who failed that exam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) assists state boards of dentistry in determining the qualifications of dentists for initial licensure. This article explains the purpose and rationale for the policies and procedures that guide the NBDE. These examinations have been used for a number of purposes well beyond the assessment of the knowledge and abilities for entry-level dental practice. The article explores the uses and misuses of the National Boards and the relationship between dental licensure examinations and dental curricula. For National Board examinations to remain current and relevant, they must be consistent with standards and best practices for high-stakes testing, and they must focus on competencies and critical thinking skills essential for future practice. The National Board examinations have the potential to stimulate and support curricular reform through collaborative efforts of educators and practitioners who support the test development and standard-setting processes of the examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research commissioned an assessment of the dental public health infrastructure in the United States as a first step toward ensuring its adequacy. This study examined several elements of the U.S. dental public health infrastructure in government, education, workforce, and regulatory issues, focused primarily at the state level.Methods: Data were drawn from a wide range of sources, including original surveys, analysis of existing databases, and compilation of publicly available information.Results: In 2002, 72.5% of states had a full-time dental director and 65% of state dental programs had total budgets of 1 million dollars or less. Among U.S. dental schools, 68% had a dental public health academic unit. Twelve and a half percent of dental schools and 64.3% of dental hygiene programs had no faculty member with a public health degree. Among schools of public health, 15% offered a graduate degree in a dental public health concentration area, and 60% had no faculty member with a dental or dental hygiene degree. There were 141 active diplomates of the American Board of Dental Public Health as of February 2001; 15% worked for state, county, or local governments. In May 2003, there were 640 U.S. members of the American Association of Public Health Dentistry with few members in most states. In 2002, 544 American Dental Association members reported their specialty as Dental Public Health, which ranged from 0 in five states to 41 in California. Just two states had a public health dentist on their dental licensing boards.Conclusions: Findings suggest the U.S. dental public health workforce is small, most state programs have scant funding, the field has minimal presence in academia, and dental public health has little role in the regulation of dentistry and dental hygiene. Successful efforts to enhance the many aspects of the U.S. dental public health infrastructure will require substantial collaboration among many diverse partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this report is to compare outcomes on the North East Regional Board of Dental Examiners (NERB) clinical examination to selected measures of academic performance in one U.S. dental school. The data came from results of the spring 2001 NERB examination at that school. Five measures of academic performance--number of Class II amalgam restorations completed, number of Class III/IV composite restorations completed, fixed prosthodontic units performed, fourth-year class rank, and GPA-were compared between those who passed and those who failed NERB's restorative exercise (RESTOR) and provisional fixed partial denture exercise (SIM). Analyses could not confirm a positive relationship between the school performance measures and the NERB outcome of passing RESTOR on the first attempt. On the other hand, those who passed SIM on the first attempt had, on the average, performed more amalgams, composites, and fixed prosthodontic units as students than those who failed; they also had, on average, better class rank and higher GPA. Therefore, only performance on SIM related to performance in school. However, both RESTOR and SIM had a similar number of failures from the top as well as the bottom portions of the class. These preliminary data from one dental school class raise questions about the validity of the NERB clinical examination for licensure decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Point/Counterpoint article examines the need for and potential impact of implementing a national clinical examination for initial licensure in dentistry. Viewpoint 1 supports a national licensure exam that meets the clinical exam's credentialing requirement for licensure in every state. According to this viewpoint, a national exam will reduce costs, enhance portability of graduates, simplify the transition from dental school to practice or specialty training programs, and standardize requirements for licensure between states. Viewpoint 2 opposes a national licensure exam. This viewpoint supports individual states' dental board decision making process, which is based on identifiable state-specific criteria. The ability to prioritize needs at the state level allows for higher exam standards, easier modifications, more focused requirements, and better calibration in specific exam areas. Viewpoint 2 argues that the delicate balance between licensure agencies and organized dentistry in each state, as well as the involvement of dental schools in the licensure process, must be preserved. This Point/Counterpoint concludes with a joint statement about the prospects for adoption of a national licensure exam.

The aim of this study was to assess the attitudes and perceptions of U.S. dental students and faculty members about National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) pass/fail reporting, an Integrated NBDE, clinical examinations, licensure process and strategies, and validity of licensure. A survey instrument consisting of ten statements with response options on a five-point Likert scale and a free-text comment section was developed and distributed through SurveyMonkey. A total of 411 students and 186 faculty members from ten U.S. dental schools participated, with an estimated response rate of 17%. Faculty and student responses were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. These students' and faculty members' attitudes and perceptions were similar. Both groups showed mixed attitudes about NBDE scores as pass/fail, rather than numerical scores. The Integrated NBDE solicited mixed opinions and concerns that it would be complicated and stressful because students would be challenged to memorize information from earlier years. However, a single national clinical examination was highly preferred by both groups, preferably with simulated rather than real patients. Other strategies, such as background checks and continuing education requirements, were supported by both groups. Most of the licensure process strategies and policies were supported by both student and faculty respondents in the dental schools surveyed.

Failure on the National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) Parts I and II has troubling consequences for dental students, faculty members, and school administrators. Since the NBDE is a high-stakes exam for all involved, it is important to determine effective strategies to help students prepare. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of online NBDE Parts I and II Review Courses by the faculty and administration at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry. The courses are taught by faculty members who are content experts. By utilizing distance technology, students in any geographic location can review the material at the time, place, and pace that are most convenient. Early outcomes show that 592 students from thirty-two states have participated in the courses since they were first offered in 2010-11. In post-course evaluations, students report that participation in the courses encouraged them to spend more time preparing for the exam and that the associated PowerPoint slides/handouts provided structure for their review. The literature suggests that multiple modalities are most effective in preparing for the NBDE. These online review courses can serve as a beneficial component of a student's preparation regimen.