Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery - Dental Columbian Yearbook (New York, NY)

Page 18 text:

Edward A. Cain, Jr. Joseph M. Leavitt Irvin L. Hunt, Jr. D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. Harold Sherman William H. Silverstein Herbert P. Fritz D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. OPERATIVE DENTISTRY Dentistry is both a cosmetic and a health service, the need for which exists in every human being to a greater or lesser degree. The need may be a present one, in the form of impaired function and or diseases of the soft tissues and supporting structures. Where no immediate need exists the in- dividual may benefit from preventive measures. Continuing education is necessary to keep the general practitioner and the specialist abreast of the newer knowledge in his profession. Each patient under his care becomes the object for careful study, diagnosis and treatment planning. The application of all his knowledge and skill is the duty of the dentist if he is to serve his patient honestly and well. Where skill in applying newer techniques is lacking, the skill must be acquired through education and practice before attempting to treat conditions as presented by the patient. Dentists generally are a forward looking, studious, alert and ingenious group who are honestly striving to better their techniques and to add to their knowledge and understanding. The pleasure to be derived from work well done is a tremendous source of satisfaction. Education, directed toward the public, is also necessary, that society will be aware of the value of the service that can be furnished by the dentist. Only by participating in a program, firstly of self education, secondly of patient education, plus a realization of duty to himself and to those ' whom he serves can the dentist shoulder his responsibility to society. Carl R. Oman, DDS Professor of Dentistry CARL R. OMAN D.D.S. Professor of Dentistry Director of Operative Dentistry illiam Miller D.D.S. Gerald H. Besen D.D.S. James Benfield S. H. Brzutowicz Joseph E. Fiasconaro Steven Scrivani D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. Kenneth C. Deesen Irving J. Naidorf D.D.S. D.D.S. Pandelis Camesas D.D.S. George Lyons D.D.S. Marvin Firdman Thomas Portway D.D.S. D.D.S.

Page 17 text:

Dentistry in the United States is facing the same ■roblem which has confronted Medicine for wenty five to thirty years. The training by pro- ;ssional schools of a competent practitioner of ne of the healing arts in a field, the complexity f which is increasing far beyond the scope which :an be encompassed in the four year curriculum. This state of affairs makes it necessary to re- xamine the dental school curriculum to determine he most effective allotment of time to the various lisciplines comprising Dentistry. Medicine has jng ago determined that the four year curriculum nay not be expanded for a multitude of good easons and it is highly unlikely that Dentistry will [epart from this traditional span. It is necessary, then, for dental schools to re- ognize that only the basic skills can be taught dequately in undergraduate training. While clini- al training will of necessity become more and nore the province of post-graduate training, hrough the medium of curricula set up by schools nd teaching hospitals. Periodontology Periodontics, perhaps more -than most other branches of Dentistry, should be made more ac- tive in the total training picture, since at present it occupies a rather modest position in the average curriculum. The reason for this is not difficult to determine. Because Periodontics arrived relatively late on the scene, it has had a difficult time in be- ing placed timewise in our teaching programs. Then, too, since the roots of our profession lie in the restorative aspects of Dentistry it can be surmised that Periodontics faces a difficult task in achieving status consistent with its importance with other branches of Dentistry as a health service. If the dental extraction is properly regarded as an amputation of an organ Periodontics assumes a conservationist position in Dentistry. Surely this is the direction in which we must go if we are to be properly considered as members of a healing art. Our objectives must be to establish ourselves as therapists who treat and retain teeth in health which has been endangered by disease. Saul Schluger, DDS Associate Clinical Professor of Dentistry FRANK E. BEUBE D.D.S. Clinical Professor of Dentistry Director of Periodontics lilllllll STOMATOLOGY Saul Schluger Leonard Hirschfeld Ellen N. Hosiosky Melvin Morris D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. £1 Robert Gottsegen D.D.S. Irving R. Stern D.D.S. Seymour Algus B. H. Wasserman D.D.S. D.D.S. Charles Berman D.D.S. Norman Joondeph D.D.S.

Page 19 text:

Prosthodontics, one of the most attractive and rewarding areas of den- tistry, is currently under attack by organized groups of dental technicians who claim that they are receiving an inadequate share of the rewards of practice. One group, calling itself denturists is demanding the perogatives of a profession and appealing directly to the public with claims that they design and construct over ninety five percent of all dentures and that dentists do not . . . make or even supervise the making of dentures. These claims are untrue. The patient in a hospital may have only a few minutes of daily contact with his physician, perhaps not even every day. Yet he is receiving round the clock care by a large variety of trained hospital personnel, working under the physician ' s supervision and responsibility. Similarly, the dentist may choose to delegate many technical phases of fabricating a dental appliance to highly skilled laboratory technicians. But it is the dentist who understands the anatomy, physiology and pathology of the oral structures. Only he can bear the responsibility for the results of the treatment. Through knowledge of basic and clinical sciences and of estab- lished principles of prosthodontics, the dentist can integrate the mechanical appliances with the living structures so that form and function are restored, health maintained, and residual structures preserved. The welfare of the patient, and the future of prosthodontics will be best served by continued collaboration of the professional skill of the dentist with the craftsmanship of the laboratory technician, but with the dentist in responsible charge. The hopes and criticism of unhappy laboratory tech- nicians should serve only to reinforce the resolve of our profession to serve our patients in a way that will leave no doubt that the future of prosthodontics is in good hands. M. A. Pleasure, D.D.S., M.S.P.H. Assoc. Clinical Prof, of Dentistry GILBERT P. SMITH D.D.S. Professor of Dentistry Director of Prosthetic Dentistry Robert E. Herlands John J. Lucca Howard A. Arden D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. William J. Miller Herbert D. Ayers, Jr. Max A. Pleasure D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 3eorge W. Hindels Joseph C. DeLisi Ennio L. Uccellani George Schwendener D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. Edward Kesseler Robert Kelley William C. Hudson Victor Coronia D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. D.D.S. Sebastian A. Bruno D.M.D.