Initiating research in a private dental practice.

Research is an intrinsic part of both academia and clinical best practice. Within an academic environment, this can include access to advice and guidance from trained professionals. Similarly, while sometimes overly risk-averse, within the NHS there is a structured and systematic approach to healthcare research. However, in the UK, a large number of specialist dental procedures take place within the private healthcare system, which does not have access to such support and guidance. How, then, can we generate our own dental research from private dental primary care settings? With a number of phrases becoming part of everyday vocabulary in dental primary care, such as practice-based research, patient-centred outcomes, evidence-based dentistry, it is time to consider this. From research ethics to writing papers, via GCP, IRAS, HEIs and MOOCs, this article summarises the experiences of one non-affiliated (non-academic, non-NHS) private dental practice attempting to enter the world of research. The authors discuss their experiences, share the multiple sources of support encountered along the way, and demonstrate the benefits to everyday practice gained by initiating research studies.

How Research Training Will Shape the Future of Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research.

This is a critical time in the history of the dental profession for it to fully embrace the responsibility to safeguard its reputation as a learned profession. In this golden era of scientific and technological advances, opportunities abound to create new diagnostics, preventions, treatments, and cures to improve oral health. Dental schools are the largest national resource entrusted with the responsibility to educate, train, and retain oral health researchers who can leverage such technologies and research opportunities that will benefit the profession at large as well as patients. This article reemphasizes the theme that research training and scholarship must be inextricably woven into the environment and culture in dental schools to ensure the future standing of the profession. An overview of the history of support provided by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research for the training and career development of dentist-scientists is presented. In addition, new data on the outcomes of such investments are presented along with a comparison with other health professions. This overview underscores the need to expand the capacity of a well-trained cadre of oral health researchers through the reengineering of training programs. Such strategies will best prepare future graduates for team science, clinical trials, and translational research as well as other emerging opportunities. The urgent need for national organizations like the American Dental Association, American Dental Education Association, and American Association for Dental Research to create new alliances and novel initiatives to assist dental schools and universities in fulfilling their research mission is emphasized. To ignore such calls for action is to disavow a valuable legacy inherited by the dental profession. This article was written as part of the project "Advancing Dental Education in the 21st Century."

The NIH's Funding to US Dental Institutions from 2005 to 2014.

This study examines funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to US dental institutions between 2005 and 2014 based on publicly available data from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. Over the 10-y span, 56 US dental institutions received approximately $2.2 billion from 20 Institutes, Centers, and Offices at the NIH. The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) is the largest NIH supporter of dental institutions, having invested 70% of the NIH total, about $1.5 billion. The NIDCR is also the primary supporter of research training and career development, as it has invested $177 million, which represents 92% of the total NIH investment of $192 million. Over the past 10 y, about half of the NIDCR's extramural award dollars have gone to dental schools, while the NIH has invested about 1%. There has been an approximately 10% net decrease in extramural dollars awarded to dental institutions over the past decade; however, given the year-to-year variability in support to dental institutions, it is unclear if this net decline reflects a long-term trend. In addition, there was an overall reduction in the extramural dollars awarded by the NIDCR and by the NIH. For example, from 2005 to 2014, the total NIDCR budget for extramural research decreased by roughly 4%, which represents a decrease of $20 million to dental institutions. After adjusting for inflation, the decline in funding to dental institutions from the NIDCR and NIH was approximately 30%. Although the NIDCR and NIH continue to invest in dental institutions, if the current decline were to continue, it could negatively affect the research conducted at dental institutions. Therefore, we discuss opportunities for dental institutions to increase NIDCR and NIH support and improve their capacity for research, research training, and career development.

Causal inference from observational data.

Randomized controlled trials have long been considered the 'gold standard' for causal inference in clinical research. In the absence of randomized experiments, identification of reliable intervention points to improve oral health is often perceived as a challenge. But other fields of science, such as social science, have always been challenged by ethical constraints to conducting randomized controlled trials. Methods have been established to make causal inference using observational data, and these methods are becoming increasingly relevant in clinical medicine, health policy and public health research. This study provides an overview of state-of-the-art methods specifically designed for causal inference in observational data, including difference-in-differences (DiD) analyses, instrumental variables (IV), regression discontinuity designs (RDD) and fixed-effects panel data analysis. The described methods may be particularly useful in dental research, not least because of the increasing availability of routinely collected administrative data and electronic health records ('big data').

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Foundation Research and Fellowship Awards: A 26-Year Review at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review outcomes of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS) Foundation's funding awards to members of the OMS department at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in terms of projects completed, abstracts presented, peer-reviewed publications, and career trajectories of recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from MGH and OMS Foundation records and interviews with award recipients. Primary outcome variables included 1) number of awards and award types, 2) funding amount, 3) project completion, 4) number of presented abstracts, 5) conversion from abstracts to publications, 6) number of peer-reviewed publications, 7) career trajectories of awardees, and 8) additional extramural funding. RESULTS: Eleven Student Research Training Awards provided $135,000 for 39 projects conducted by 37 students. Of these, 34 (87.2%) were completed. There were 30 student abstracts presented, 21 peer-reviewed publications, and a publication conversion rate of 58.8%. Faculty research awards comprised $1,510,970 for 22 research projects by 12 faculty members and two research fellows. Of the 22 funded projects, 21 (95.5%) were completed. There were 110 faculty and research fellow abstracts presented and 113 peer-reviewed publications, for a publication conversion rate of 93.8%. In the student group, 17 of 37 (45.9%) are enrolled in or are applying for OMS residencies. Of the 10 students who have completed OMS training, 3 (30%) are in full-time academic positions. Of the 12 faculty recipients, 9 (75%) remain in OMS academic practice. During this time period, the department received $9.9 million of extramural foundation or National Institutes of Health funding directly or indirectly related to the OMS Foundation grants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that 90.2% of projects funded by the OMS Foundation have been completed. Most projects resulted in abstracts and publications in peer-reviewed journals. These grants encouraged students to pursue OMS careers and aided OMS faculty in developing their research programs.

Do the Science, Own the Field. Are We Doing the Science?

For oral and maxillofacial surgery to continue being a premier specialty in the management of patients with craniomaxillofacial conditions, contributions to the better treatment of these patients must be continuously offered. Without performing the science, these offerings will not come or will not be valid. Environmental and funding challenges to performing the science have increased in the past 2 decades. The incorporation of protected research time and a research sabbatical for residents within their training program might be effective ways to meet these challenges.

Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Economic Evaluation Publications in Dentistry.

Economic evaluation (EE) studies have been undertaken in dentistry since the late 20th century because economic data provide additional information to policy makers to develop guidelines and set future direction for oral health services. The objectives of this study were to assess the methodological quality of EEs in oral health. Electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database from 1975 to 2013 were undertaken to identify publications that include costs and outcomes in dentistry. Relevant reference lists were also searched for additional studies. Studies were retrieved and reviewed independently for inclusion by 3 authors. Furthermore, to appraise the EE methods, 1 author applied the Drummond 10-item (13-criteria) checklist tool to each study. Of the 114 publications identified, 79 studies were considered full EE and 35 partial. Twenty-eight studies (30%) were published between the years 2011 and 2013. Sixty-four (53%) studies focused on dental caries prevention or treatment. Median appraisal scores calculated for full and partial EE studies were 11 and 9 out of 13, respectively. Quality assessment scores showed that the quality of partial EE studies published after 2000 significantly improved (P = 0.02) compared to those published before 2000. Significant quality improvement was not found in full EE studies. Common methodological limitations were identified: absence of sensitivity analysis, discounting, and insufficient information on how costs and outcomes were measured and valued. EE studies in dentistry increased over the last 40 y in both quantity and quality, but a number of publications failed to satisfy some components of standard EE research methods, such as sensitivity analysis and discounting.