History of the Faculty

[From the 1958-1959 Hya Yaka/Yearbook]

The old and the new: A message from the Dean...

The building at 230 College Street, occupied by the Faculty of Dentistry, is just fifty years old. It has served the profession well. Within its walls a host of students hve been instructed by loyal teachers, so that upon graduation, these students were ready to assume their professional responsibilities. The old building bears mute testimony to th emany changes that have taken place in order that improvements in the curriculum and new technical procedures might be taught to dental students,

I am sure many of you can recall your own student days, but for the sake of those who have graduated within comparatively recent times—the last fifteen to twenty years—let me record a few of the changes that have occurred in my thirty-five years from junior student in 1924 to today. Denture aesthetics (dentogenics today) was achieved by laboiously grinding to an accurate fit, the joints between porcelain 'gum blocks' each carrying two or three teeth. The joint had to be accurate so that the vulcanite forming the denture base and holding the pink gum sections in palce would not get through between the blocks and form a dark line. It literally took hours.

In case you are not familiar with vulcanite, let me remind you that it was the great denture material until about twenty years ago. Today, the average dental student does not see vulcanite or know the joys of working with it.

Then there was the foot engine. Somtimes we managed to speed it up to several hundred r.p.m.'s. It soumds foolish now in terms of today's speeds. The electric dental drill at a few thousand r.p.m.'s was occasionally available to students, as the airotor is today. But tomorrow the airotor may become standard equipment for students, Learning to operate in the pre-clinical technique course with the gentle touch required with the airotor handpiece may introduce a new approach in the practice of operative dentistry.

We could recall some other advances made over th epast few decades which have affected the life of the dental student and the practitioner, but those mentioned above have taken place during the half century that 230 College Street has been the home of dental students.

But what happened before 230 College Street came into existence? How did dental education get its start? Who gave leadership in the early years?

In 1875 the School of Dentistry at the Royal College of Dental Surgeons opened its first session under the leadership of James Branston Willmott. This marked the beginning of formal dental education in the Province of Ontario, under the provisions of the Act respecting dentistry passed by the Onario legislature in 1868. During the next forty years Dean J. B. Willmott guided an ever expanding educational programme through five different locations which culminated in 1909 wiht the move to 230 College Street.

In 1915 one of the greatest dental teachers in the history of the school, namely Dr. A. E. Webster, became its dean. The school was at that time faced wiht the problems created by the First World War, and subsequently by the very croweded post-war period which was climaxed in 1923 with the graduation of 320 ex-service men.

During the next decade Dean Wallace Seccombe was at the helm. His dedication to the principles of preventive dentistry was in no small measure responsible for the establishment of the first department of preventive dentistry in a dental school.

In 1935, under Dean Seccombe's chairmanship, the American Association of Dental Schools completed a survey on dental education in the United States an dCanada which resulted in the publication of the 'red book' of dental education.

His successor, about one year later, Dr. Arnold D. Mason, is still revered by the profession as the Dean Emeritus of the school. Like his predecessor and contemporary on the teaching staff, Dr. A. E. Webster, Dean Mason was beset in his day with the trials and tribulations which accompanied the operation of the school during the Second World War.

Very briefly, then, the four men mentioned above have guided the destiny of our dental school for a period of over seventy years. They raised the standards gradually, brought the School of Dentistry into the University as an autonomous faculty, and established dentistry as one of the important members of the health professions.

And now, those of us who take part in the move from the building at 230 College Street to new and enlarged quarters are well aware of the traditions established by our forebears. For a number of years the need for a new dental building has been discussed and considered from every possible angle. In 1944 a small sub-committee of the staff was appointed by the Board of the Royal College of Dental Surgeons to consider and report on the new facilities required. Five of the six members of the 1944 sub-committee have been acting recently on a ten-man building committee which has been giving leadership in the formation of plans for the new dental building.

The new building comprises a basement and five floors above ground wiht a total area of approximately 180,000 square feet of floor space which includes the garage. The plans include one lecture room large enough to hold three classes (375 students); two others each to seat 125; a combined lecture room and laboratory for 50 dental hygienists, seminar rooms, and three large laboratories, each of which can accommodate a class of 125 students. The clinical teaching facilities include one general clinic to accommodate a full class (125 students); one to accommodate a full class (125 students); one to accommodate a half class (62 students); a combined pedodontic-orthodontic clinic for 31 students; a prosthodontic clinic for twenty students, and separate clinical facilities for diagnosis, radiology an ddental surgery.

Provision has been made for instruction of graduates in short courses and the more extensive two or three-year courses leading to specialty diplomas. A sixteen chair graduate clinic is supported by the necessary clinic rooms, laboratories, and project rooms. The library facilities will sea well over 100 students at any time, and the museum will be adjacent to the library. The administrative and departmental offices are located on the third floor. The fourth and fifth floors provide accommodation for the visual aid department and research.

It is anticipated that by 1963 the graduating class will approach the maximum of 125 students. By 1966-1967 the Faculty is expected to have an enrolment of 725 undergraduates, made up of 125 in the preprofessional and each of th efour dental years, and fifty in both years of the dental hygiene course.

In keeping with modern trends in education, the dental building will be equipped with facilities for closed circuit television. This medium will be used for demonstrations, both laboratory and clinical, but not for lectures.

Throughout the seemingly endless planning that has gone on in relation to the physical plant, those of us closest to the project have come to realize that even more important than the building is our concern whether 'today's plans will satisfy tomorrow's needs.' We have done a lot of soul searching as we have been faced, at every turn, by this question. We have asked even more questions of ourselves concerning the job we are doing for our students, the profession and the community at large.

Our plans for tomorrow are therefore based on the needs of the public and the students, who upon graduation must be equipped to become the 'family dentists' of the future.

I am sure this has always been the objective of dental schools in the past, but with increasing recognition being given to a growing number of specialty fields, the clinical staff in dental schools has gradually become more and more a group of specialists, each limiting his instruction to his own field. The natural outcome of this trend is the desire of each of the specialty groups to aim for a greater degree of student time and proficiency, which in turn builds up pressure on the crowded undergraduate curriculum. One of my friends observes in this connection: 'Departmental schedules, like modern cars, tend to get longer and longer, with less space to park them.' A high standard of proficiency, even perfection, is desirable in a graduate or postgraduate course, leading to specialty certification, but it is not feasible, nor desirable, in the undergraduate course. Perhaps we can go so far as to say that departmental demands for clinical proficiency in the undergraduate student should be superseded by the necessity for a thorough understanding in all phases of 'family dentistry.' The elimination of departmental lines in the undergraduate teaching programme would have a most salutary effect. If we could impress the student that he is studying dentistry—for the whole family—for the whole patient—for the total well-being of the patient—our chief objective in dental education would be met.

Yes, we are fashioning a building, but just as important, we are developing a staff.

But what about the students?

Through the years, and the pace has been quickened recently, the significance of positive 'motivation' of students has claimed increasing attention. Undeniably, many students in the freshman and sophomore years fail to appreciate the true significance of the biological science courses. Too many of them look upon these courses as a necessary and barely tolerable part of the 'rat race.' They have difficulty relating the courses in physiology, bio-chemistry, pathology and anatomy to the practice of dentistry—even though examples illustrating their application are provided at intervals by the basic science teachers.

It has been our contention that the introduction of the student to the oral cavity, during the first and second years, while these fundamental courses are being taught, could stimulate the student's interest in these courses. We have introduced such a programme in first and second years, calling it, for want of a better name, 'orienation to clinical practice.' Our limited experience with this plan emphasizes that it has great possibilities and it is our intention to expand the programme.

The following example—one of many which could be recited—will suffice. The students are paired off in the clinic in the freshman year. They give each other a prophylaxis and in turn they have a good look around in the mouth. The normal appearance of the gingivae is discussed and examined. Contour, texture, stipling, inflammation, are observed, then a suitable normal case is chosen and also one of inflammation—these are observed by the class using television. Biopsy specimens are taken from each for study. At the second meeting the sections are discussed in relation to the clinical appearnance and also to their studies in anatomy and histology. These subjects can, by this means, be made to live, and the student 'motivated' to their fundamental clinical value. The comments of students who have participated in this programme of orientation have been a revelation. The time and effort spent by staff in integrating these facets of the dental course, which at times have appeared to some students so remote, will be justified in terms of positive motivation of all students. 

All professions are inextricably bound to the changing tenor of the society in which they live. Whether these changes are social, financial, pholosophical [sic] or ideological, they are bound to affect us, for the dental profession cannot exist in a vacuum. We know that the population is increasing more rapidly than we can increase the number of dental graduates. We know that less than fifty percent of the population seeks total dental care and yet there is evidence that the public appreciation of dental care is increasing. The statistician could make the figures look grim but it scarcely requires a mathematician to sound the alert to the danger signals ahead. To meet that danger, we must either reduce the need for service or increase the supply of hands available to provide the service. The first points to research activities from which may come preventive easures designed to reduce the public's need for service and similarly effective dental health education which will contribute substantially in reducing the incidence of dental disease.

The alternative involves personnel. An increase of hands can be provided by either graduating more dentists or facilitating the integration of auxiliary personnel. The secretary of the A.D.A. Council on Dental Education, Dr. S. Peterson, in a paper read in Milwaulee, Wisconsin, referred to the graduation of more dentists in these words: 'We know that we would have to increase instantly the size of all forty-seven dental schools (U.S.) by one-third in order to have enough dentists in 1975 to maintain the same ration of dentists that we have today.'

The training of the undergraduate student in the dental school as a member of a dental health team, so that he is capable of giving guidance and leadership to auxiliary personnel, becomes a dominant facet of today's plans in relation to satisfying tomorrow's service needs. And yet the solution is not so simple when it comes to the undergraduate educational programme.

And this brigns us to the consideration of something even more intangible—but perhaps the most vital and important issue of all, both in the education of the undergraduate student and in his ability after graduation to continue his growth in professional stature. It is the development of the professional attitude. The dental school staff is responsible for the indoctrination of students in professional conduct, good human relations, and professional and public relations. From the day the student enters the professional school, he should be made aware of the fact that he has joined a group of men and women who are set apart as dedicated individuals.

Irrespective of how well we teach techniques, or impress the student with the significance of the oral cavity in relation to the total well-being of the patient, if he fails to develop personal qualities which will be translated into the practice of ethical and professional behaviour we fail in our obligation to the profession, both past and present. The present stature of the profession is the heritage bestowed upon us by the efforts of  many generations of dentists hwo have exemplified professional ethics, and placed service above self. Albert Schweitzer said of the professional man: 'He belongs no more to himself alone; he has become the brother of all who suffer.'

You may well enquire now about our plans for developing in the graduates of tomorrow the highest qualities associated with professional ethics. They will not be the natural outcome of the adequacy of a new building or the effectiveness of new equipment; nor will they be developed in proportion to the efficiency of the latest techniques or materials; but more than likely the attainment of these qualities will be a measure of the example set by the instructors, both individually and collectively. The selection of staff, then, assumes maximum importance. Scholarshp and skill may be prerequisite for a good teacher, but dedication to professional ethics and service is indispensable in a professional faculty.

You can all recall, perhaps vividly, from your own student days those instructors who impressed you with their inherent personal honesty, kindliness, integrity and sympathy; teachers who placed service above self—men who would not accept 'good enough' as satisfactory but demanded your best. They exemplified the qualities which are now and will be in the future the profession's greatest assets. A single member of the staff, be he the head of his department, will not accomplish much alone. It requires the collectice [sic] effort of all staff members, working all the time, from the beginning of the freshman year to the end of the senior year, to imprint the hallmark of professional man on the new graduate.

We hope that the present-day staff will be as successful in their new facilities at 126 [sic] Edward Street as their predecessors were at 230 College Street.

Roy G. Ellis

Dean