Trends in Behavioral Sciences Education in

Dental Schools, 1926 to 2016

Linda Centore, PhD, ANP
Abstract: This article outlines the journey of behavioral sciences education from a multidisciplinary array of topics to a discipline
with a name, core identity, and mission in dental schools’ curricula. While not exhaustive, it covers pivotal events from the time
of the Gies report in 1926 to the present. Strengths and weaknesses of current behavioral sciences instruction in dental schools are
discussed, along with identification of future opportunities and potential threats. Suggestions for future directions for behavioral
sciences and new roles for behavioral sciences faculty in dental schools are proposed. This article was written as part of the proj-
ect “Advancing Dental Education in the 21st Century.”
Dr. Centore is Health Sciences Clinical Professor and Chair, Division of Behavioral Sciences and Community Dental Education,
University of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry. Direct correspondence to Dr. Linda Centore, Division of Behavioral
Sciences and Community Dental Education, University of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry, 707 Parnassus Avenue,
Box 0758, San Francisco, CA 94143; 415-502-6301; Linda.Centore@ucsf.edu.
Keywords: dental education, behavioral sciences, curriculum, dental curriculum, doctor-patient relations, communication
Submitted for publication 1/27/17; accepted 3/15/17
doi: 10.21815/JDE.017.009

T
his article aims to broadly review the history
of teaching behavioral sciences in dental
curricula as an aspect of the current state of
dental education (Figure 1). It was written as part
of the project “Advancing Dental Education in the
21st Century.”
Revolutionary guidelines for dental education
emerged in the early 20th century as a result of Wil-
liam J. Gies’s Report on Dental Education in the
United States and Canada.1 As dentistry defined itself
as a closely aligned but separate profession from
medicine and proposed higher education require-
ments to doctoral level education, a new standard
was created. This included newly desired qualities,
characteristics, and expectations for dentists. Gies
described the conscientious dentist as one who is
mentally, emotionally, and socially mature with
qualities of “self-control, attention, courtesy, kind-
liness, sympathy, tact, and good will.” While this
proposal was empowering for dentistry, achieving
agreement among the schools took time. The 41
member schools of the American Association of Den-
tal Schools (AADS; now American Dental Education
Association, ADEA) endorsed these progressive
recommendations, but several decades passed before
they were fully accepted.2
The Gies report planted the seeds for new
behavioral expectations for dentists. In addition to
competence in technical restorative skills, the report
stated that dentists should be caring and compas-
sionate clinicians. Gies believed that a well-rounded
dental education would humanize dentists and lead
to better patient care. “Behavioral science,” a term
coined in 1951, is defined as a “branch of science (i.e.,
psychology, sociology, or anthropology) that includes
human interaction and provides generalizable prin-
ciples about human behavior in society.”3 This new
branch of science gave a designation to a collection
of topics relevant to understanding human behavior
deemed important in educating dental professionals.
By the 1970s, these topics had coalesced and gained a
solid presence in dental curricula. Dworkin, a signifi-
cant contributor to that development, saw the need to
incorporate multiple disciplines and include relevant
aspects of psychology, anthropology, sociology, pub-
lic health, epidemiology, statistics, and economics.4
In the beginning, dental faculty members called
on colleagues in psychiatry, psychology, or sociol-
ogy to teach behavioral sciences to dental students.
Well-intentioned, non-dental faculty members could
not fully comprehend dentistry’s patient manage-
ment challenges and struggled with which aspects
of human behavior or social sciences to teach.4,5
Content did not immediately translate into relevance
for dental students or positively impact patient care.
Initial attitudes toward behavioral sciences by dental
faculty and students could be described as ambivalent
at best. A new perspective was needed to connect
human behavior and patient management skills to
the relevant clinical context in dentistry.

eS66 Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 81, Number 8 Supplement

Figure 1. Timeline of the development of behavioral sciences in dentistry and dental education
From the 1970s to the 1990s, Dworkin and
other notable behavioral scientists succeeded in
creating a map for behavioral sciences instruction
and promoted what it could offer dentistry. Further
evidence of the increasing significance of behavioral
sciences was its new presence in dental education
research. Proposals requesting funding for research
in this new field of behavioral sciences flowed into
the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR;
now National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial
Research, NIDCR). However, the authors of those
proposals came from such diverse educational back-
grounds that NIDR staff were confused regarding
who should review them.6
During the mid-1990s, dental educators agreed
that behavioral sciences content would improve the
dentist’s ability to successfully interact with patients.
Dworkin identified two formidable obstacles to
educating dental students to internalize humanistic
attitudes in dental school: the pressured dental cur-
riculum with little time for personal growth, and the
narrow faculty focus on teaching hand skills.4 He
declared that self-awareness, reflection, the student-
August 2017 Supplement  ■  Journal of Dental Education
doctor-patient relationship, and working with other
health care professionals and the community were
essential.7 Dworkin and Gershen were pioneers
who implemented active and experiential learning
methods to assist dental students in increasing their
awareness of patients’ emotional experience of the
doctor-patient relationship and treatment.7,8 Educated
and trained as dentists and psychologists, these in-
novators brought relevance to the field of behavioral
sciences and moved the field forward by virtue of
their interprofessional lenses.
Teaching Behavioral
Sciences: The Path to
Relevance
While gaining traction, behavioral sciences
instruction was by no means unanimously accepted
in dental schools. In a 1969 survey, Jetterson discov-
ered that 60% of U.S. dental schools did not have
formal instruction in behavioral sciences.9 He learned
eS67
 that 85% of dental students initially reported they
believed behavioral sciences courses would be valu-
able to their education; however, after taking their
coursework, this dropped to 66%. Negative student
opinion was related to choice of content and teaching
methods. These findings underline the challenge of
teaching behavioral sciences: identifying the knowl-
edge and skill sets needed for patient management,
and integrating it with the relevant basic sciences
and clinical dental sciences in a relevant context.
Furthermore, Dworkin and other behavioral sciences
faculty members realized behavioral sciences instruc-
tion lacked a set of clear educational objectives.7,8
In 1984, the first curriculum guidelines for be-
havioral sciences instruction in dental schools were
established.10 In 1993, the Curriculum Guidelines
Committee of the Section on Behavioral Sciences of
the AADS (now ADEA) published new guidelines
for behavioral sciences content.11 The accrediting and
regulatory bodies who influenced these guidelines
included the AADS, American Dental Associa-
tion (ADA), Commission on Dental Accreditation
(CODA), and Institute of Medicine (IOM). These
guidelines provided didactic and clinical skill-based
teaching recommendations in areas captured broadly
as ethics; professional socialization; stress and pain;
self-awareness; communication and interviewing;
developmental needs of the child, adolescent, adult,
and older adult; patients with special needs; cultural
awareness; management of anxiety; and practice
management. These guidelines were aimed at stan-
dardizing this aspect of dental curricula. In a survey
of behavioral sciences hours (didactic and clinical)
published in 1993, 39 U.S. dental schools reported an
average of 41 total curriculum hours of interpersonal
skills instruction, 49 hours of behavior management
instruction, and 27 hours of anxiety and pain control
instruction in behavioral sciences teaching, with 7-14
hours teaching these topics in clinic.12 Schools varied
widely in behavioral sciences teaching hours. Some
integrated behavioral sciences topics into clinical
general dentistry or specialty courses, and others
offered stand-alone courses.
The 1995 IOM report Dental Education at the
Crossroads provided guiding principles and objec-
tives for dental education. Two objectives from the
IOM report were especially important to behavioral
sciences: 1) reducing disparities in oral health status
by disadvantaged economic, racial, and other groups;
and 2) encouraging prevention at both the individual
and community level.13 Similarly, the 2000 surgeon
general’s report on oral health re-emphasized the
eS68 Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 81, Number 8 Supplement
integration of dentistry with medicine and described
oral health disparities.14 The report suggested cre-
ating messages sensitive to language and culture
to change public perceptions about prevention. A
stronger message came from the surgeon general’s
2003 national call to action requesting culturally
informed and linguistically accessible messages
about the importance of regular oral health care to
improve health literacy.15 These influential reports
raised awareness of the importance of personal and
cultural health beliefs as they affect comprehension
of need for preventive services. Additionally, they
made clear the need for dental schools to go out to
the community to serve those in need.
Beginning in 2002, the Robert Wood Johnston
Foundation funded Pipeline, Profession, and Prac-
tice: Community-Based Dental Education grants to
assist dental schools in providing clinical education
in community clinics and to inspire dental students
to choose community clinics as a career path.16
Schools with pre-existing community-based pro-
grams expanded them, and those without developed
new community partnerships. Behavioral sciences
instruction was developed to increase students’ cul-
tural sensitivity to prepare them to work with diverse
patient populations. Community-based dental educa-
tion, now a CODA requirement, provides students
with experience treating diverse populations of
vulnerable and underserved patients. Despite some
residual faculty ambivalence about students’ learning
dentistry at externship sites, students reported satis-
faction in their reflective essays.17 When surveyed,
students reported positive experience with exposure
to challenging clinical presentations, sociocultural
issues (e.g., substance abuse, domestic violence,
poverty, mental illness), and self-esteem-building
experiences with patients, staff, and site dentists.18
Donate-Bartfield and Lausten showed that provid-
ing culturally sensitive patient care to reduce health
disparities required an understanding of the patient’s
perception, appreciation of cultural practices, good
communication skills, and ethical reasoning.19 They
differentiated the need to understand cultural beliefs
from attempting to “manage” or manipulate patient
behavior, as health beliefs and behavior are a true
reflection of culture.
With all these developments, teaching inter-
personal communication skills became a cornerstone
of behavioral sciences teaching. Communicating ef-
fectively and managing diverse patient populations
involve sophisticated interpersonal skills. The novice
clinician needs doctor-patient relationship skills such
as creating a safe environment for disclosure, asking
non-judgmental questions, active listening, the ability
to empathize, clarifying and asking follow-up ques-
tions, providing patient education in plain and simple
words, and performing a teach-back for informed
consent. Richards and Inglehart found that case-
based, small-group teaching methods that brought
together dental and behavioral sciences faculty in-
creased dental students’ awareness of the importance
of psychosocial and cultural factors.20 Influencing cli-
nician attitudes and values in the service of increasing
communication skills and cultural humility requires
teaching methods that invite clinicians to examine
their own behavior in the doctor-patient relationship.
Simulation is required with demonstration/modeling,
deliberate practice, and self- and peer assessment.
The use of standardized patient actors or real pa-
tients as teachers for dental students brings social,
linguistic, and cultural traditions to life with imme-
diacy and clinical relevance. Wagner et al. found that
dental students who interacted with mock patients
trained to present challenging social histories and
cultural characteristics showed increased sensitivity
to cultural differences on post-program surveys.21 If
dental students do not possess an understanding of
cultural traditions and oral health beliefs, the patient
is at high risk for making a decision that could be
misperceived as “being non-compliant.”
New skills were also needed for dentists to
motivate patients with low oral health literacy to
improve their oral hygiene and engage in preven-
tive practices. Donate-Bartfield et al. advocated for
a multidisciplinary philosophy that could bring be-
havioral sciences, ethics, and public health together
to create a broader context for teaching culturally
sensitive patient care.22 Examining assumptions, us-
ing reflective listening, and showing empathy were
defined as essential tools. This approach develops
cultural sensitivity and is aligned with the ethical
and public health responsibility of dentists. In addi-
tion, motivational interviewing has brought dentistry
a counseling method that is superior in motivating
behavioral change when compared to conventional
education23 and provides dentists with a tool to im-
prove preventive oral hygiene practices and increase
compliance with caries management by risk assess-
ment (CAMBRA) interventions.
A paradigm shift has occurred in our under-
standing about how to teach novice adult learners.
Ambrose et al. stated that “learning is a process, not
a product . . . and is not done to students but rather
something students themselves do.”24 Behavioral
August 2017 Supplement  ■  Journal of Dental Education
sciences faculty members realize it is critical to
identify learner motivation as it fuels their interest
and informs their priorities for learning. Ambrose et
al. stated that component skills, such as communica-
tion skills, need practice and benefit from targeted
feedback. Active listening, empathetic responses,
interviewing skills, assessment and management of
dental fear, and identification of oral health beliefs
and oral health literacy level are component skills
that need to be addressed. Teaching dental students
to counsel patients in a simulated environment allows
behavioral faculty to evaluate novice clinician inter-
personal skills. Often dental students do not realize
the value of interpersonal skills until they graduate
and interact with patients in a practice setting. I have
seen this confirmed in exit interviews when students
rate whether content received during predoctoral
education was adequate. The challenge for faculty
members in behavioral sciences has consistently been
how to focus selectively on the most critical skills
given resource limitations.
Over 90 years after the Gies Report, we have
high expectations for the professional development
of dentists and for the faculty teaching dental students
and contributing to their professional socialization.
While it varies by institution, behavioral sciences
faculty members are accountable for teaching key
parts of the content required in the CODA standards
(Table 1).25 Prioritization is often necessary due to
time, personnel, and competing priorities. These
pressures challenge the best-intentioned behavioral
sciences faculty members to comprehensively ad-
dress the 2016 standards.
Responding to a New Oral
Health Care Horizon: The
Path to Shape-Shifting
Behavioral sciences instruction sits at the
dynamic intersection of acceptance, relevance, and
integration for the purpose of achieving excellent
communication and interpersonal skills in future den-
tal graduates who must treat a diverse population. The
more seamless the integration of behavioral sciences
with basic and dental sciences, the more likely these
skills will be perceived as relevant and be practiced.
Routine oral health screening, evaluation, and treat-
ment require tolerance of mild discomfort, accep-
tance of intrusion into an orifice (the oral cavity), and
perceptions about body image. The art and technique
eS69
 Table 1. 2016 CODA accreditation standards for predoctoral education that pertain to behavioral sciences
Dimensions of Diversity: relates to the curriculum, but may also involve aspects of structural and institutional climate
diversity.
Principles of the Educational Environment: should involve comprehensive patient-centered care, critical thinking, self-di-
rected learning, a humanistic environment, scientific discovery and the integration of knowledge, evidence-based
care, assessment, application of technology, faculty development, collaboration with other health care providers,
and diversity.
Humanistic Environment: relates to humanistic pedagogy that includes respect, tolerance, understanding, and concern
for others and is fostered by mentoring, advising, and small-group interaction with respectful professional relation-
ships between and among faculty and students that establishes a context for the development of interpersonal skills
necessary for learning, for patient care, and for making meaningful contributions to the profession.
Diversity: relates to recognition that a significant amount of learning occurs through informal interactions among indi-
viduals who learn directly and indirectly learn from their differences, and need to reexamine assumptions about
themselves and their world. Programs must create an environment that ensures an in-depth exchange of ideas and
beliefs across gender, racial, ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic lines.
Curriculum Management
2-6 Biomedical, behavioral, and clinical science instruction must be integrated and of sufficient depth, scope,
timeliness, quality, and emphasis to ensure achievement of the curriculum’s defined competencies.
Self-Assessment
2-10 Graduates must demonstrate the ability to self-assess, including the development of professional competen-
cies and the demonstration of professional values and capacities associated with self-directed, lifelong learning.
Behavioral Sciences
2-15 Graduates must be competent in the application of the fundamental principles of behavioral sciences as they
pertain to patient-centered approaches for promoting, improving, and maintaining oral health.
2-16 Graduates must be competent in managing a diverse patient population and have the interpersonal and com-
munication skills to function successfully in a multicultural environment.
Ethics
2-20 Graduates must be competent in the application of the principles of ethical decision making and professional
responsibility.
Clinical Sciences
2-22 Graduates must be competent in providing oral health care within the scope of general dentistry to patients in
all stages of life.
2-25 Dental education programs must make available opportunities and encourage students to engage in service-
learning experiences and/or community-based learning experiences.
Faculty and Staff
3-2 The dental school must show evidence of an ongoing faculty development process.
Source: Commission on Dental Accreditation. Accreditation standards for dental education programs. Chicago: American Dental
Association, 2016.

of the doctor-patient relationship require both its own
place in the curriculum and integration in the con-
text of general dentistry. Relevant behavioral skills
assessments include creating a safe environment to
disclose health history information; communicat-
ing empathy and compassion when discussing bad
news; assessing and successfully managing dental
and injection fear; addressing unrealistic expecta-
tions; assessing health literacy in patient teaching;
and coaching patients to adapt to a prosthesis (e.g.,
partial or full denture) or accept complex treatment
(e.g., scaling and root planing, periodontal surgery,
extractions, or implants).
With an increasing population of patients with
more complex medical, cognitive, and psychiatric
conditions and multiple medications, dental stu-
dents need high-level medical and psychological
history-taking skills. Students need more training
to assess, manage, and monitor cognitive capacity
for giving informed consent for health care, as well
as assessing controlled and uncontrolled conditions
that may require modifications for treatment (e.g.,
patients with diabetes, dementia, traumatic brain
injury, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, cancer, or major depression). There will be
a need for enhanced knowledge and critical thinking

eS70 Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 81, Number 8 Supplement

about pharmacology and psychopharmacology along
with a deeper understanding of how aging affects the
absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination
of medications. The dentist of tomorrow needs more
patient management skills including sophisticated
communication and interpersonal skills to interact
with patients and all members of the health care team.
Increasingly, interprofessional education and practice
will immerse dentists in the medical environment
and bring much-deserved respect to dentists who
complete the health care team.
Behavioral sciences instruction must dem-
onstrate flexibility to meet challenges ahead as the
landscape changes. What would Gies say about
dentistry in the 21st century? He would likely com-
ment that the profession has evolved from a cottage
industry to a profession with evidence-based guide-
lines. He might recommend an open-minded stance
for dentists who fear change in health care delivery
models or a loss of autonomy from interprofessional
collaboration or mid-level providers. He would likely
advise re-envisioning dental education to prepare
future dentists for practice settings that currently do
not exist. Behavioral sciences faculty members are
partners in educating the dentists of tomorrow. As
we work together toward that goal, it is important to
keep in mind the strengths, weakness, opportunities,
and threats (SWOT) to behavioral sciences instruc-
tion in dental schools today. I provide my SWOT
analysis in Table 2.
Discussion
The dentist of tomorrow must be compassion-
ate, evidence-based, highly skilled, and ready to
collaborate with and be part of an interprofessional
health care team. Communicating effectively with
other health care professionals is essential. In a rap-
idly changing population, the dentist of tomorrow
needs to be comfortable with communicating with
diverse populations. The Cultural and Linguistically
Appropriate Services (CLAS) Guidelines recom-
mended by the U.S. Office of Minority Health will
likely have a greater impact on dental practice in
the future.26 With a shift toward non-white major-
ity cultures,27 Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
patients and those who prefer oral health care infor-
mation in their first language will expect that dental
professionals provide professional interpreters in
all dental practice settings and provide translated
patient education materials, treatment plans, and
August 2017 Supplement  ■  Journal of Dental Education
consent forms in all languages representing 5% or
more of the surrounding demographic. Schools will
need to move toward professional interpreting sys-
tems or create options for oral certification exams
for students, staff, and faculty. At the same time
baby-boomers are aging and living longer, requiring
an expansion of care in geriatric dentistry, we do
not have a sufficient number of dentists to treat the
oral health needs of children.28 Behavioral sciences
content is therefore needed to expand the graduating
dentist’s competence in treating diverse populations.
One could predict that dentistry will eventually ac-
cept mid-level practitioners as medicine has with
nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants. New
roles require clarity, communication skills, and team
function. Behavioral sciences faculty members are
poised to provide education to address these needs.
Conclusion
Behavioral sciences faculty members are
highly valuable interprofessional colleagues who
contribute significantly to the professional social-
ization of dentists. Behavioral sciences education
humanizes the novice learner by providing knowl-
edge, influencing attitudes, and teaching patient
management skills. As partners and resources,
behavioral sciences faculty members stand ready
to educate dentists in new roles. Gies would be
pleased to see how far we have come in human-
izing dentists to create compassionate, caring oral
health care providers. With the needs of aging and
diverse populations and an insufficient number
of dentists to treat children, new roles, and health
care delivery models, dentistry will need all of its
health care colleagues, including the behavioral
sciences faculty. Imagine a health care home where
the dentist is a colleague welcomed and part of the
health care team. We have already moved from an
emphasis on interprofessional education to thinking
about the infrastructure and mechanisms needed to
create a health care home where dentistry practices
alongside medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and mental
health in providing comprehensive care.
There are many changes occurring in our health
care system. Dental curricula will need to shape-shift
to meet the needs of the public for greater access to
care, to address changes in both the dental and health
care practice environment, and to advance with sci-
ence as new developments impact oral health. As the
silo environment of solo private practice sunsets, a
eS71
 Table 2. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats (SWOT) analysis of the behavioral sciences curriculum today

Strengths
1. Behavioral sciences curriculum is a key component in dental curricula and required by the Commission on Dental
Accreditation (CODA). Most behavioral sciences faculty are faculty with at least a master’s degree and more often a
doctoral degree in clinical or educational psychology, social work, or nursing.
2. Behavioral sciences curriculum content adapts to changes in CODA competencies for dental school curricula. It is
taught by faculty with a working knowledge of dentistry or co-taught with dentists for increased relevance to actual
practice.
3. Behavioral sciences faculty have been fully integrated into dental schools with some holding clinical, administrative,
or research positions such as division chairs, department chairs, or deans and are leaders within their institutions.
Weaknesses
1. Behavioral sciences curriculum is often the primary responsibility of one or two full- or part-time faculty members.
Given competing academic demands, faculty members must make choices about content and emphasis based on
available curriculum time, dental faculty colleague availability for content relevance, resources, and expertise.
2. Achieving basic competence in communication and interpersonal skills in order to serve a diverse population
requires the iterative process of experiencing, reflecting, thinking, and acting. Teaching and assessing these skills are
time- and labor-intensive and, as such, require additional faculty, space, and simulation time and resources similar to
the development of other performance skills.
3. Succession planning for behavioral sciences faculty in dental schools requires identifying candidates with expertise
in multiple areas: psychological assessment and intervention skills, educator training, and working knowledge of
patient care issues in dentistry.
Opportunities
1. A doctoring and professionalism course brings together topics related to professional socialization and identity and
patient management skills in the service of developing an emotionally mature clinician. Skills would include inter-
viewing and medical/dental/psychosocial history taking; managing ethical dilemmas in clinic; determining capacity
and obtaining informed consent; dental anxiety/fear assessment and management; motivational interviewing; conflict
resolution; determining a good faith relationship; dismissing a patient; and documentation skills.
2. Establish a pipeline for behavioral sciences teaching succession planning by creating continuing education courses,
certificate programs, or postdoctoral fellowships in behavioral dentistry for psychology, social work, and nursing
doctoral-level graduates to attract new candidates. Having these graduates rotate through clinical dentistry as part of
a behavioral health rotation may inspire interest.
3. Behavioral sciences teaching is offered by both clinical and research behavioral sciences faculty. Behavioral clinical
faculty members add significant value to predoctoral and postdoctoral education with their clinical expertise. They
are an asset to clinic directors, faculty, and students in clinic and could be considered for leadership positions such
as dean of student affairs or dean of diversity and inclusion.
4. Behavioral research faculty add significant value to predoctoral and postdoctoral education in mentoring students
and residents on research projects and theses, respectively. They are an asset to the research enterprise and scholarly
infrastructure in dental schools and could be considered for positions such as directors of predoctoral or postdoctoral
educational assessment or deans of research.
5. Virtual, simulation, and standardized patients used in OSCEs could be shared among health professions programs,
both for purposes of sharing resources and for interprofessional education.
Threats
1. As new technology, discoveries, procedures, and materials emerge in dentistry, there will be increased competition
for curriculum time. Behavioral sciences may face challenges in retaining hours for didactic instruction and simula-
tion experiences.
2. As the expense of dental education rises, schools will look to save money on their most expensive item: faculty
salaries. This might lead to moving more content online and creating more interprofessional courses. As this occurs,
it would be important to make sure dentistry’s unique patient management issues are included.

new and more collaborative form of dentistry dawns,
and behavior sciences will be there to help.
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to acknowledge the follow-
ing individuals who made incisive comments that
improved the clarity of ideas and flow of thinking:
Susan Hyde, DDS, MPH, PhD, Associate Professor,
Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sci-
ences, School of Dentistry, University of California,
San Francisco; Anne Koerber, DDS, PhD, Professor,
Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sci-
ences, College of Dentistry, University of Illinois at
Chicago; George Taylor, DMD, MPH, DrPH, Profes-
sor, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental
Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Cali-
fornia, San Francisco; and Evelyn Donate-Bartfield,
PhD, Professor, Department of Dental Developmental
Sciences/Behavioral Sciences, College of Dentistry,
Marquette University.

eS72 Journal of Dental Education  ■  Volume 81, Number 8 Supplement


Editor’s Disclosure
This article is published in an online-only
supplement to the Journal of Dental Education as
part of a special project that was conducted indepen-
dently of the American Dental Education Association
(ADEA). Manuscripts for this supplement were
reviewed by the project’s directors and the coordina-
tors of the project’s sections and were assessed for
general content and formatting by the editorial staff.
Any opinions expressed are those of the authors and
do not necessarily represent the Journal of Dental
Education or ADEA.
REFERENCES
1. Gies WJ. Report on dental education in the United States
and Canada. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, 1926.
2. Blauch LE. An effort to devise a dental curriculum. Bull
Med Libr Assoc 1933;22(2):91-3.
3. Behavioral science definition. Merriam-Webster Diction-
ary. At: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/behav-
ioral%20sciences. Accessed 31 Oct. 2015.
4. Dworkin SF. Behavioral sciences in dental education: past,
present, and future. J Dent Educ 1981;45(10):692-8.
5. Jackson E, Katz JO. Issues in applied behavioral science.
J Dent Educ 1983;47(2):66-82.
6. Cohen LK. Behavioral and social science research support
from the National Institute of Dental Research. J Dent
Educ 1983;47(2):77-9.
7. Dworkin SF. Behavioral sciences in dental education:
broad purposes and educational objectives. J Dent Educ
1974;38(4):204-10.
8. Gershen JA. Use of experiential techniques in interper-
sonal skills training. J Dent Educ 1983;47(2):72-4.
9. Jetterson EO. Behavioral science in dental education:
formal instruction and student opinions. J Dent Educ
1974;38(8):428-35.
10. American Association of Dental Schools. Special report:
curriculum guidelines for behavioral sciences in dentistry.
J Dent Educ 1984;48(9):520-6.
11. American Association of Dental Schools. Curricu-
lum guidelines for behavioral science. J Dent Educ
1993;57(8):648-57.
12. Lange BM, Dunning DG, Lewis MA. A baseline study of
behavioral sciences instruction in dental schools. J Dent
Educ 1993;57(3):244-7.
13. Field MJ, ed. Dental education at the crossroads: chal-
lenges and change. An Institute of Medicine Report.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1995.
14. Oral health in America: a report of the surgeon general.
2000. At: nidcr.nih.gov/DataStatistics/SurgeonGeneral/
August 2017 Supplement  ■  Journal of Dental Education
Report/ExecutiveSummary.htm#majorFindings. Accessed
31 Oct. 2015.
15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National
call to action to promote oral health. 2003. At: www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK47478/#surggenctaoralactio.Ac-
tion_4_Increase_Or. Accessed 31 Oct. 2015.
16. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Pipeline, profession,
and practice: community-based dental education grants.
2001. At: www.rwjf.org/content/rwjf/en/how-we-work/
grants/search.html?k=dental+pipeline&s=5. Accessed 31
Oct. 2015.
17. Hewlett ER, Andersen RM, Atchison KA. The pipeline
program at the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill School of Dentistry. J Dent Educ 2009;73(2):135-45.
18. Mathieson KM, Gross-Panico ML, Cottam WW, Woldt
ML. Critical incidents, successes, challenges of commu-
nity-based dental education. J Dent Educ 2013;78(4):
427-37.
19. Donate-Bartfield E, Lausten L. Why practice culturally
sensitive care? Integrating ethics and behavioral science.
J Dent Educ 2002;66(9):1006-10.
20. Richards PS, Inglehart MR. An interdisciplinary approach
to case-based teaching: does it create patient-centered and
culturally sensitive providers? J Dent 2005;70(3):284-91.
21. Wagner J, Arteaga S, D’Ambrosio J, et al. Dental students’
attitudes toward treating diverse patients: effects of a
cross-cultural patient-instructor program. J Dent Educ
2008;72(10):1128-34.
22. Donate-Bartfield E, Lobb WK, Roucka TM. Teaching
culturally sensitive care to dental students: a multidisci-
plinary approach. J Dent Educ 2013;78(3):454-65.
23. Gao X, Lo ECM, Kot SCC, Chan KCW. Motivational
interviewing in improving oral health: a systematic
review of randomized controlled trials. J Periodontol
2014;85(3):426-37.
24. Ambrose SA, Bridges MW, DiPietro M, et al. How
learning works: seven principles for smart teaching. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.
25. Commission on Dental Accreditation. Accreditation stan-
dards for dental education programs. Chicago: American
Dental Association, 2016.
26. U.S. Office of Minority Health. National cultural
and linguistically appropriate services standards.
2016. At: www.minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.
aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53. Accessed 24 Feb. 2016.
27. Population Dynamics Research Group. Generational
projections of the California population by nativity and
year of immigrant arrival. 2012. At: www.usc.edu/schools/
price/research/popdynamics. Accessed 31 Oct. 2015.
28. Seale NS, McWhorter AG, Mouradian WE. Dental educa-
tion’s role in improving children’s oral health and access
to care. Acad Pediatr 2009;9(6):440-5.
eS73