1970-2007
IADReports
Volume 17, Number 5
November/December 1995
75th Anniversary
 |
Blizzard Fails to
Dampen Anniversary Spirits
|
Inspite of high winds and record snowfall in the Washington, DC, area, a hardy group of more than fifty IADR officers, members, and friends gathered on January 7 to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the IADR and to dedicate formally the new IADR/AADR Headquarters Building in Alexandria, VA. The day opened with a special program at the Old Towne Holiday Inn Hotel, with special presentations by IADR President Richard Ranney and AADR President Marjorie Jeffcoat, a keynote address, Impact of Dental Research on Practice, Education, Industry, and Public Health Worldwide, by IADR Vice-president Per-Olof Glantz, and an expression of appreciation to our sponsors by Jack Hein, chairman of the Headquarters Building Fund Campaign. This was followed by a lively discussion of The Next 75 Years, with a panel led by Graham Embery, President of the IADR's British Division, and an enthusiastic audience. The program continued at a luncheon celebrating the occasion, with Harold Slavkin, Director of NIDR, offering glimpses of today and tomorrow in The Future is Now. (NB: The texts of these presentations are reprinted elsewhere in this newsletter.) IADR Board Member-at-Large Bill Young concluded the luncheon with a melodious toast.
Immediately following lunch, the participants ventured out into the "Blizzard of '96" by shuttle bus to travel the short distance to the new HQ building on Duke Street. In ceremonies moved inside to escape the snow and extreme cold, Presidents Ranney and Jeffcoat cut the ribbon, formally "opening" the new building, and led in a toast. IADR staff then assisted members and friends in a tour of the building before re-boarding the buses to return to the hotel. The storm forced many participants to stay in Alexandria longer than they had anticipated; however, all had to admit that January 7 had proven to be a truly memorable occasion.
75th Anniversary Keynote Speaker
Impact of Dental Research on Practice, Education, Industry, and Public Health Worldwide
I hope, ladies and gentlemen, that you agree with an opening statement that dental research has an identity of its own in the international research community. I will give examples to prove this statement later in my presentation, but first we should perhaps make sure that we agree on the definition of "dental research". In my mind, we should accept a liberal one and, like the Oxford English Dictionary, look upon Dental Research as "the act of searching for specific answers to problems in the oral cavity". An acceptance of this definition leads to the immediate acknowledgment of dental research as a process that has been going on for a very long time indeed.
The systematic search for increased knowledge and solutions to dental and oral problems seems in fact to have started so long ago that today we are not even aware of the names of the early dental researchers—those, for example, who, in the Valley of lower Mesopotamia, some 5000 years BC, on one of the discovered clay tablets, in cuneiform writing, stated that toothache is caused by the gnawing of small worms in the aching tooth.
Other examples of early dental researchers include the Chinese practitioners, who, 2700 BC, already used acupuncture for the treatment of toothache and other cases of oral pain. The Egyptian Papyrus Ebers—the most important medical papyrus from 1500 BC—and the Assyrian tablets from around 670 BC are also reporting on dental research matters, as are the papers of Hippocrates (ca. 460-375 BC), the Greek scientist frequently referred to as "the Father of Medicine".
In many of his books, Hippocrates attached special importance to the diseases of the dental system, and gave suggestions for their proper treatment. It is particularly interesting to note that he considered affections of the teeth to be dependent on "a combination of natural predisposition and the corroding action of accumulated filth"!
Dental problems obviously played significant roles in many people's lives in ancient times, and frequent descriptions of such problems and suggestions for their proper treatment can be followed in the literature through the following centuries with a clear focusing on dental caries and toothache. Other interesting aspects of dentistry were, however, also covered. Since this is not primarily a presentation focused on historical aspects of dental research, I will mention only that the first description of artificial teeth was made by the Roman Martial, who, in a poem, indicated that artificial teeth were fashionable in Roman society. We should also remember that so-called "cosmetic" dentistry is not a new invention at all—it was already practiced by the Maya Indians, who made inlays of jade and turquoise in the buccal surfaces of maxillary front teeth.
As we follow dental research through the centuries, it is particularly interesting to note that many of today's dental materials and treatment methods were first described a very long time ago indeed. A material with a basic composition like that of dental amalgam, for example, was known to the Chinese more than 1300 years ago, and a set of dental scalers with the basic design of similar modern instruments was described about 900 years ago by the Arabian surgeon Abulcasis. Already in the sixteenth century, the famous French surgeon Ambroise Paré also spoke of the transplantation of teeth.
In the eighteenth century, Dentistry achieved recognition as a specialized clinical field, with the Frenchman Pierre Fauchard (1678-1761) as the first modern dental researcher. In his famous book of 1728, entitled Le chirurgien Dentiste ou traité des dents, he presents an excellent description of teeth and the alveolar processes. Fauchard is credited with having introduced the term "dental caries", and he definitely put aside the story of "worms" in the teeth. Instead, he stated that "The little or no care as to the cleansing of the teeth is ordinarily the cause of all the maladies that destroy them." The influence of Fauchard on the evolution of dentistry has been far-reaching, and he has therefore significantly been styled "The Father of Modern Dentistry". He could with equal rights be named "The Father of Modern Dental Research".
Around the middle of the last century, knowledge about dental diseases and their treatment had reached such levels that the first dental college, The Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, was chartered by the State of Maryland. The course of study lasted two years in those days—the same amount of time required for a medical degree—with instruction during four months of the year. The remainder of the time was obviously spent receiving practical experience in a dental office.
As a result of the successful foundation of the pioneer Baltimore school, several similar centers were soon to be found in the United States and Europe. As a consequence, from around this time, at least in the bigger cities of the Western World, dentistry began to be practiced by graduates of these new academic dental centers. At the same time, however, in many parts of the world, dental treatments were performed—and are, to a limited extent, still performed—by poorly qualified operators such as the jack-of-all-trades, whose signs in the early days declared that they also bled and made powder for the itch.
From its emergence as an autonomous health care sector in the mid-1800s, dentistry rapidly developed as a mainly surgical profession. The reason, naturally, was the overwhelming prevalence of oral diseases, in combination with a lack of detailed knowledge of their etiologies, but a knowledge about available surgical treatment techniques. Some particularly important progress in clinical dentistry that gradually changed its character occurred around the turn of this century through contributions from a line of dental researchers who were graduates of the academic dental system. Such a person was Dr. Willoughby D. Miller (1853-1907), the American discoverer of the chemibacterial cause of caries, who spent many years as a Professor of Operative Dentistry at The University of Berlin in Germany. Another one was Dr. Greene Vardiman Black (1836-1915) of Chicago, recognized by many as the outstanding dental scientist of the nineteenth century. Black covered the entire field of dentistry in his research and not only contributed to the standardization of cavity preparations—for which he is best remembered today—but also showed great interest in what is today known as the field of preventive dentistry. A European scientist of the same kind and with a matching impact was Professor Dr. Alfred Gysi (1865-1957) of the University of Zurich in Switzerland
A fourth outstanding dental scientist from this period was Dr. William J. Gies (1872-1956). Dr. Gies, an eminent biochemist at Columbia University, has made contributions to the advancement of dentistry that are among the greatest of any non-dentist, since he was a distinguished leader not only in dental research but also in dental education and dental journalism. His contributions are particularly important to this organization, since, in 1919, he founded our journal, the Journal of Dental Research, which he edited without pay for 16 years, and he used his personal funds to meet its deficits. In 1920, he co-founded the IADR, which he served as secretary for 11 years. Today he is perhaps best remembered for his monumental survey of dental education in the United States and Canada, which he conducted in 1921-1926 under the auspices of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. His study is still recognized as a model and resulted in the absorption by universities of nearly all of the then-independent dental schools in this part of the world.
The contributions of these scientists and their colleagues systematically increased our knowledge of the biology of the oral cavity, as well as of the oral diseases, their diagnosis and treatment. The initiatives of Drs. Miller, Black, Gysi, Gies, and others continued and soon led to further major impacts for dental research. I believe it in fact to be both correct and fair to state that, in terms of clinical relevance, no area of research has been more successful than dental research, at least not in the health service sector. Thus, from an epidemiological viewpoint, few achievements in modern medicine rival the finding by Dean and co-workers in 1942 that an inverse relationship exists between the concentration of fluoride in the drinking water and dental caries in children, followed by the now-classic trials in Grand Rapids, Michigan, that showed a 50% reduction of tooth decay in children from that city after fluoride was added to the drinking water supply. Not only in this country but also virtually around the world has the use of fluoride had a major impact on the prevalence of dental caries and created a situation where this disease among children has now been so greatly reduced that often more than half of them and sometimes even more have permanent dentitions that are caries-free.
Other outstanding accomplishments in the clinical dental sciences included proving that dental caries is an infectious disease, at least in animals, and the recognition that plaque bacteria can initiate gingivitis, which can progress to periodontal disease. Both these observations have led to further breakthroughs in the development of new treatment methods and, perhaps more importantly, have generated a range of preventive measures. In many health care communities throughout the world, today's central philosophy is preventive medicine. In that avenue, dentistry was in the forefront long before it became fashionable in medicine. From these examples, I hope that we can agree that it is proven beyond any doubt that dental research has had a major impact on public health worldwide!
In a presentation such as this, it is not possible to cover even all the major steps in the development of dental research, but I still believe that, from the examples given, it is accurate to state that, as a direct result of recent such research, treatment of oral diseases has become more medical and less surgical. Some experts predict that this trend will continue and be strengthened in the future. Dr. Harald Löe, Past President of this organization and Director emeritus of the National Institute of Dental Research, has, for example, called for "an increase in the breadth and depth of preparation of future dentists", including "more internal medicine and clinical pharmacology, more immunology, more genetics, and more molecular biology, and new levels of sophistication in communication skills and in clinical decision-making". Along the same lines, Dr. Robert Genco, also a Past President of IADR, recently stated that, "in the future, dentists treating periodontal disease will spend more of their time making diagnostic decisions and writing prescriptions for therapeutic pharmaceuticals". This transition in the dental profession would not have been possible and will certainly not be possible in the future if the impact of dental research on education had not been both strong, continuous, and efficient. From this, it follows that, to meet future goals, the ties between dental education and dental research must be further broadened and strengthened. In order to support such a development, IADR, under its present President, Dr. Richard Ranney, is in the process of establishing an Educational Research Group.
At the same time, as the medical side of dentistry has grown stronger, we also have to acknowledge that major, research-generated improvements have also been made in the surgical sectors of dentistry. Let me here mention only the introduction of modern casting and polymerization techniques, and the development in the 1950s of the high-speed handpiece. Especially this latter invention had an almost immediate impact on clinical dentistry from the patient's point of view and contributed to making today's dentistry less painful and less expensive than only some 30 years ago.
The successful developments of implant dentistry and adhesive dentistry are further examples of clinical impacts generated by modern dental research. In many areas of surgery, the success of dental implantology is presently in the process of opening new avenues for reconstructive treatments in virtually every skeletal part of the body. Here again, we have an example where research findings from the dental field have had worldwide health impact. In this case, it is especially interesting, since the research in question has generated a transformation into acceptance of the field of implantology from its fairly recent status as a scientifically questionable and (frequently) clinically disreputable activity.
Based on these and similar examples, I am convinced that, in the future, there will be more research-based improvements in dentistry. The oral cavity offers many advantages for clinical research based on the fact that it is an ecologically equilibrated environment to which we have easy access without surgical procedures and therefore no engagement of defense mechanisms—provided, of course, that we work with co-operative test persons.
The immediate educational consequences of modern dental research and the ongoing changes in clinical dentistry have been pointed out by many dental educators and researchers—for example, by our President-elect, Dr. John S. Greenspan, who, in collaboration with colleagues from the UCSF School of Dentistry, recently concluded that "Schools that limit research activities too rigidly to short-term application toward what are perceived to be Ôoral' problems will often miss exciting opportunities for the kind of multidisciplinary, interprofessional, and collaborative team research that is most likely to solve the complex challenges presented by orofacial disease and disorders." Along the lines of these ideas, we can foresee an even closer future relationship between dentistry and its neighboring disciplines as well as between dental research and dental education.
From what has so far been presented, I believe that the mere nature of modern clinical dentistry is illustrating the impact of dental research on modern dental practice and modern dental education in North America, Europe, and other parts of the Western world. At this time, however, we should acknowledge a couple of facts. The first one is that even if research-generated advances in modern technology undoubtedly have been of benefit to dentistry in its preventive and curative activities for populations worldwide, a range of studies still shows that utilization of these services and adoption of preventive methods are not taken up at an optimal level. The final battle for improved oral health is therefore not won, even in Western Societies.
Second, if we turn to other societies where other types of dental education and clinical dentistry are practiced, the situation is even more difficult and less satisfactory. Thus, even if non-Western types of dentistry are rarely covered in the dental literature, such types of dental activities are practiced in many developing parts of the world. In Chinese society, there are, for example, problems between the traditional lay health concepts and modern professional ones. Traditional Chinese health concepts consist, as the basis for maintaining health, of the balance between and interaction of "Yin" and "Yang", the so-called vital forces both in the universe and in man's body,. To restore a supposed disturbed equilibrium of vital forces, believed to manifest itself as disease, a range of dietary products is available—for example, cooling herb tea to reduce so-called "fire from the stomach" believed to produce gum disease. Seeking dental treatment from dentists can then be delayed or made "unnecessary" due to reliance on these and other home remedies. This will in its turn reduce the effectiveness of organized health education activities and available dental services according to prevailing Western concepts. An understanding of the cultural meaning of dental disease is therefore fundamental if we are to be successful in our implementation of research findings in many communities of the developing world.
If we now proceed to discuss the impact of dental research on the dental industry, as mentioned before, many dentists and dental researchers of the nineteenth century were themselves engaged in the manufacturing of dental products. A good example of this group is Dr. Samuel S. White of Philadelphia (1822-1879), who founded the once-famous S.S. White Dental Mfg. Co. The broad and general field of interest and activity of members of his generation is illustrated by the fact that not only was Dr. White the leader of a major dental manufacturing company, but he was also publisher of Dental Cosmos, a once-leading national and international dental journal that merged with the Journal of the American Dental Association in 1936. A similar path of development and similar entrepreneurs can be found in other parts of the world, even if, probably for geographic and socio-economic reasons, none of them reached the fame of Dr. White.
Naturally, with the development of modern dentistry and its transition into a high-tech health service sector, direct integration between industry and academic research has become less frequent. We must remember, however, that, in certain centralized countries, the major manufacturer of dental materials and devices is also the nation's most prestigious official research center. In addition to this, we should also recognize that, as modern dentistry was branching out, parts of dental research stayed with the manufacturers of the dental products. This is particularly the case for certain areas of the dental materials research sector. Some R & D departments of dental manufacturing companies therefore continue to play not only major but sometimes leading roles in these areas of dental research. In general terms, as far as research-industry relations in dentistry are concerned, I believe that the present situation is a good example of a statement made by Prager and Omenn from 1980, that "the overall innovative process encompasses a spectrum of activities from basic research to commercial application and marketing, and for this innovation process to be productive, the generation of new knowledge must be linked with the transition of that knowledge into commercial products and services".
Again, in general terms, I therefore think that it is correct to state that the relationship between academic dental research and the dental industry has been rewarding to both sides. This organization, for example, has for many years benefited from fruitful relationships with many of the leading dental manufacturers in North America, Europe, and the Far East.
In the middle of this welcome strong collaboration between industry and many academic investigators which recently has reached levels of complexity not experienced in modern times, situations have, however, also been created where potential ethical compromises are imminent. The ethical problems I have in mind are naturally generated by the fact that members of the university and industry generally come to clinical trials and similar cooperative situations with somewhat different objectives: Industry is there primarily to try to prove a product's effectiveness, while academicians are seeking—or at least are supposed to seek—new knowledge. It is not only natural but also to be expected that such a difference in fundamental objectives will create a range of ethical problems. Penetration of these problem-complexes is one of the most essential components of the ongoing discussions between the dental industry and researchers from academic dentistry. It is therefore natural that IADR is presently in the process of establishing a code of ethics.
In conclusion, the mere nature of modern dentistry demonstrates that, over the past hundred years or so, Dental Research has acted as the bridge by which the dental profession has been transferred from its original Art of pulling, drilling, and filling to its present state as the Science of oral diagnosis, oral rehabilitation, and the prevention of oral disease. The results from long-term dental research have therefore, in a convincing way, demonstrated that dental research has had a major impact on the practice of dentistry, on dental education, on the dental industry, and on public health worldwide.
—Per-Olof J. Glantz
Faculty of Odontology
Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
IADR President's Message
75 Years of the IADR
Distinguished colleagues and guests: I'm delighted you're here! I appreciate that you are here because the IADR is meaningful to you; but it's also true that so many of you have been very meaningful to the well-being of the Association. I have a great sense of humility in representing the IADR in such company.
Nonetheless, since it is my privilege to serve as IADR's President during this year of celebration, I also have the privilege of beginning these events with a small reflection on the IADR's first 75 years. There's no way to do justice in a few minutes to the 75-year history of the IADR, so I must of necessity make excerpts that are personal choices. For a more balanced position, I commend to you the 75th Anniversary Commemorative issue of IADReports, wherein will be chronological summaries by IADR's historian, Frank Orland, and Executive Directors John Gray and John Clarkson. Some of my remarks are borrowed from drafts of these summaries, and from the book completed in 1973 by the IADR History ad hoc Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Orland, The First Fifty-Year History of the IADR.
So, to begin, we have been primarily an individual member-oriented Association devoted to facilitation of communication of the members' research findings through publications and meetings. As an illustration of the orientation to individuals, IADR has a 75-year history and I am its 72nd President. The first, J. Leon Williams, served two years, as did two other early Presidents, but for the past 63 years, although there's no prohibition in our Constitution & Bylaws, no person has been President of IADR for more than one term. That typifies a major source of our strength: the willing volunteer efforts of a large number of different members. The diversity of background and experience brought to the organization and its functions by annual refreshment with a new but non-renewing officer each year results in a very productive hybrid vigor. We have as yet, however, had only a single female president, Marie Nylen, so we can and should capitalize further on that rather obvious and capable source of diversity for strength.
Back to our beginnings: The founder of the IADR was born not far from here in Reisterstown, Maryland. Most of you know he was not a dentist or physician. He was a biochemist who served for many years as Chairman of Biological Chemistry at Columbia University, William J. Gies. Before Dr. Gies and 21 colleagues, meeting at the Columbia University Club in New York City, "invented" the IADR by adopting Articles of Agreement on December 10, 1920, he had already catalyzed the conversion of the Journal of the Allied Dental Societies to the Journal of Dental Research. Thus, our official publication has its first issue date in March of 1919, before our Association actually began. So Dr. Gies started both our Association and our Journal. He eventually also served IADR as President, but not until nearly 20 years after he facilitated its existence. He did remain Editor of the Journal until 1935. I'd like at this time to acknowledge his successors in that capacity: Theodore Rosebury, Hamilton B.G. Robinson, Frank Orland, David Mitchell, Bar Levy, Colin Dawes, and now Mark Herzberg.
With respect to organizational structure, Dr. Gies conceived of the IADR as a federation of geographical Sections and Divisions. Though the organization was founded in the USA with the initiating Sections located in New York, Boston, and Chicago, a broader geographic diversity clearly was desired by our founders. Article I of the Constitution they adopted specified the name to be what it is to day, the International Association for Dental Research, and Article II aimed for involvement of "investigators in all nations". The initial Constitution also specified that Divisions could be formed by members in any nation, and that Sections in any geographical center could organize with the approval of their national Division. Well, our members never have cared much for details of structure or governance. In fact, governance in the IADR is something akin to herding cats. Most attempts at it, however, have been perpetrated by cat-lovers, and we generally have prospered rather than suffered from our members' independence. So, despite the specifications of our Constitution to the contrary, Sections arose before there were Divisions, and Divisions have not had a consistent pattern of confinement to a single nation's borders—some are, some aren't, and it has ever been so. Occasionally, real-world politics have been factors in the design of Divisions, such as the need for an identifiably national voice specifically for the funding of dental research in the offices of the Congress of the United States. But by and large the Divisions have developed by natural alliances among scientists within some geographic area, whether within or across national boundaries. These alliances have changed from time to time, and this is perhaps the way it should be. The real importance of our Divisional entities now, in my view, is two-fold: First, they provide a convenient and reasonably equitable means of approving the business and policies of the Association, and second, they provide a very useful means for actualizing the geographic diversity of the IADR. They emphasize and help to implement our internationality. John Gray credits Gunnar Ryge with the Constitutional amendments that enabled a change in governance to a Council format to occur around 1972, in effect a change from a democratic assembly having its majority from a single country, to an essentially senatorial governing body. This set the stage for the real internationalization that followed. With 16 Divisions now, and still some non-Divisional Sections, our Council does represent a very sizable portion of the world's geography. Through action on a Task Force study, we are in the process of attending to residual equity issues in this form of governance. It remains a strategic objective to extend even further our already-extensive geographic diversity, but as of today, internationality, which Orland characterized as a pioneering yet little more than nominal dream of our founders, has clearly emerged as a strength in reality.
We also have strength proceeding from constancy of purpose and devotion to its fulfillment. IADR's mission has always had a principal focus on advancement of knowledge which leads to improvements in dental and oral health. The first part of the statement of objectives in IADR's original Constitution—"to promote broadly the advancement of active research in all branches of dental science"—is retained as the first tenet of our current Mission Statement, "to advance research and increase knowledge for the improvement of oral health worldwide". It is clear from the visits of officers to our Divisions that the IADR is now recognized as the professional Association for oral health research and oral health researchers in the world. The latter clause resonates well with the second tenet of our current Mission, "To support and represent the oral health research community". The experiential base for concluding that we are living those two aspects of our mission is sound. One or more of our officers or the Executive Director in just the last three years have personally represented the IADR in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Egypt, England, Israel, Peru, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and of course Singapore, where our last annual session was held, as well as numerous sites in the US and Canada. If one allows just a few years' grace to include relatively recent IADR dual Sessions in Ireland and Mexico and exploration of the potential for a meeting in Korea, we have visited one or more countries in all of our Divisions and even some that are not (at least not yet) part of our Divisional or Sectional structure.
Growth in individual membership has been as dramatic as that of geographic expansion, although we grew somewhat slowly at first. It took us 20 years to reach 500 members and another 20 to add the next 500, but then the spurt began. Membership grew to over 3,000 by 1970, and as of September 1, 1995, totaled 10,750. This growth in recent years has occurred primarily outside of North America, and particularly in Asia. Yesterday, we learned that we soon will have our first President from Japan, and two years ago our President was from the Southeast Asian Division.
Following the fostering of dental research and serving researchers, our Mission Statement's third stated purpose is "To facilitate the communication and application of research findings". Of course, a very major way we have approached that throughout our history is through our annual meetings. Here again, growth has been phenomenal. I'll use just three numbers to illustrate: Two papers were presented at lADR's first meeting, 377 were presented at the first meeting I attended, and 3,378 are accepted for our 1996 meeting. Prior to 1975, none of our annual sessions was held outside North America, but London as a meeting site in that year was followed by Copenhagen in 1977, and Osaka in 1980, and, in keeping with our geographic expansion, a pattern was quickly established of meeting outside of North America every third year. The IADR Board of Directors yesterday approved making that every second year.
We have also grown in scientific diversity, which, after reaching a certain size, we began to manage through Scientific Research Groups. The model in many ways was the Dental Materials Group, which evolved from a self-directed group of investigators that affiliated with the IADR before WWII. It was not until 1965, however, that the second Group, Craniofacial Biology, was recognized. But then the Periodontal Research Group followed in 1969, and there was subsequent rapid growth to the present 19 Groups. The Board is recommending that the 20th be approved by Council this year.
Probably no one would have consciously designed an Association with our convoluted structure, but it does have its own, in some measure serendipitous, genius. Just as the Divisional structure I mentioned earlier manages geographic diversity and approves business matters, the Groups manage the communication of science. They provide the expertise for the peer review and organization of the huge scientific diversity that are now integral to our annual sessions, and they are increasingly important for authoritative interpretation of scientific data as we more and more consider the advisability of policy statements.
In pursuing the mission of communication in the written form, we also have grown as a publisher. Including the Journal of Dental Research, we, together with the AADR, publish three journals of our own, the other two being Advances in Dental Research and Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine. We additionally publish two journals for others, and, of course, our own newsletters, meetings programs, and other means of written communication for our membership. The most recent initiative in this arena, possibly the most important for the future, is movement into hyperspace through, to date, e-mail, the beginnings of a linked page for the IADR on the World Wide Web, and a trial together with some other publishers that puts the JDR on-line in selected venues.
I can't omit some mention of finances as an organizational strength. Much credit goes to former President Bill Bowen, who earlier served as Treasurer and not only put a firm hand on accurate and timely accounting of revenues and costs, but also guided us into the process of investing reserve funds. With the added excellent contributions of Ian Hamilton as Treasurer for eight years, and our growing experience in managing the revenues and costs from meetings, publications, advertising, and gifts, together with the AADR (but separately accounted and attributed), investments in reserve are maintained that well exceed the combined annual budgets of the two Associations. As a result of such careful management practices, we are happily able to report that not only are we financially healthy, but only 17% of the revenues reflected in the last annual audit came from dues.
I could mention our excellent staff anywhere in this review. They do a beautiful job of running our office, relating to our members, our publics and other organizations, producing our publications, arranging our meetings, managing the finances, and all the other things it takes to keep all of our operations going on a daily basis. Together with John Clarkson, the best Executive Director of any Association of our scope and size, they're a formidable team. Incidentally. I want to mention also that the present Board is delighted that we have succeeded in renewing John's contract into the year 2000. But to return to topic, I chose at this point to mention the staff because they are not only so vitally important to our effectiveness, they are also part of our cost-effectiveness: There are only 14 of them! Yet they do so much so well, and together they serve the IADR also.
Our financial strength is worth noting for the security it provides, but more importantly because it makes us better able to fulfill our mission. The Strategic Planning process, initiated by Robert Genco in his presidential year and reaching its first completed form in 1994 with John Clarkson's leadership, includes strategic directions and implementation plans which have begun to operate. Each subservient to the tripartite Mission Statement to which I have already referred, these include expansions of awards and fellowships programs, visiting lecture and science transfer programs, expansions of international collaborations, the institution of support grants for developing regions, and greater involvement in the policy arena, in addition to the continuance of our traditional functions.
I must also mention the building we will officially open this afternoon. Our offices have moved from officers' basements, as related to the Board not long ago by Past President Gordon Rovelstad, through rental space in the American Dental Association's buildings in Chicago and then Washington, to fulfillment of a long and strongly held objective of owning our facilities. I won't cheat the rest of the program by saying too much about it now, but I guarantee that those of us who have already used the facility for committee meetings love it. It's not just the convenience, the newness, the excellence with which our staff have arranged and furnished the space. The more compelling feeling is one of added pride in our Association, which perhaps could have happened in no other way. I bet you'll feel it, too.
So, is this a pretty good Association or what? We're for real. We count. The work of our members contributes to the quality of life in the world. Over the past 75 years, the IADR has grown in membership, geographic extent, scientific diversity, publications, annual sessions, facilities, finances, and the ability to pursue our mission. We are the professional organization in scientific research related to oral health, and therefore also an important part of what Floyd Bloom, in a recent editorial in Science, described as the intellectual chain underlying all science, the interweaving of individual contributions on a worldwide scale.
Thank you for helping to celebrate that here this morning.
—Richard R. Ranney
President, IADR
AADR President's Message
Dental Research Comes of Age
Without question, the prevention and treatment of oral disease have been of importance to societies since ancient times. The early Etruscans made partial dentures to replace missing teeth, and as early as 3700 BC, the Sumerians "hypothesized" that tooth worms were responsible for tooth decay and pain.
In preparation for the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the International Association for Dental Research and the opening of the IADR/AADR headquarters building, each IADR Group President was surveyed to determine the major scientific accomplishments in the Groups' areas of expertise over the past 75 years. Needless to say, the progress has been too extensive to detail here. The goal of this report is simply to present a framework for our past accomplishments with an eye to our future.
The first age of mechanical treatment began with ancient cultures. Calculus was physically removed from the teeth in an early attempt to treat periodontal disease, missing teeth were replaced with partial dentures made of carved or human teeth, and the first dental implants were attempted. This formative period continued for thousands of years with refinement but without a fundamental change in how we look at oral diseases, their causes and treatment.
The modern age of investigation is marked by the advent of tools for the study of the pathogenesis of oral diseases. Early tools, including the microscope and x-ray, heralded an era of observation. With the twentieth century, the age of observation gave way to the age of hypothesis testing, with studies of microbiology, host immune response, molecular genetics, mineralized tissues, epidemiology, and behavioral sciences, to name but a few.
The first golden age of prevention deserves its own recognition, not only due to fluoride's major impact in reducing the prevalence and incidence of caries, but also because the fluoride story serves as a model for how observations may be formulated into testable scientific hypotheses. The widespread adoption of fluoride, however, required more than the factual finding that fluoride could reduce caries. Public health, health promotion, and behavioral science were all critical to this great success in prevention.
The second age of mechanical treatment has resulted from breakthrough research on many fronts. The rational design and testing of restorative materials, bonding agents, dental implants, maxillofacial prostheses, and CAD/CAM are as important to new therapy as are new surgical techniques.
Modern approaches to investigation have led the way to the age of rational therapy directed against disease etiology. Characteristic elements include new diagnostic methods and risk assessments for oral cancer, periodontal diseases, caries, salivary and immune disorders, and infections (including HIV). The use of remineralizing solutions in addition to sealants represents an intersection between mechanical therapy and a biological approach to prevent caries. Guided tissue regeneration and the potential of growth factors are areas where an understanding of the materials, molecular, and genetic aspects of a problem are all critical to the implementation of new strategies for therapy.
We are now entering an era of collaborative research which should result in a second age of prevention (and regeneration). The development of vaccines must be based on an understanding of mucosal immunity and etiology. New drugs for the treatment of many diseases will require specialized delivery systems, which are designs for localized intra-oral use. The distinction between mechanical and biological therapy is becoming increasingly indistinct: For example, dental implants are being designed with bioactive coatings, and genetically engineered growth factors may be incorporated into graft or guided tissue regeneration materials of the future. It appears more and more reasonable to expect that tissue engineering will ultimately permit regeneration of lost tissues with the characteristics of the original healthy state.
Dental rearchers have come a long way. Nevertheless, manifestations of infections including HIV, dental caries, and periodontal diseases remain significant health problems today. Oral cancer, craniofacial malformations, and autoimmune diseases are among the many areas of inquiry addressed by oral researchers. While forecasting is a notoriously inexact art, one thing is sure: Tomorrow's solutions are not the same as yesterday's. Through collaborative research we will find the solutions for the 21st century. What, I wonder, will be the next era for dental research?
—Marjorie Jeffcoat
President, AADR
Official Opening of IADR/AADR Headquarters
Investing in Bricks and Mortar—An Appreciation of Sponsors
Yesterday, if someone were to have inquired about the location of the international headquarters of dental researchers throughout the world, there was no answer to their question that would have had a marked effect on the mind or emotions. However, as a consequence of the ceremonies here today that have been made possible by the generous support of many sponsors, we are dramatically changing that predicament for the better. From today forward, international dental science will have, for the first time in its history, its own permanent home in a very impressive facility fully befitting the status of a branch of science that has reached full maturity.
But, as I express appreciation to all who have helped make this day possible, it is not as much for the bricks and mortar that we should be grateful; but rather, it is for the gift of a symbol of excellence and permanence that the bricks and mortar convey to our IADR. And further enhancing our pride in this enlarged image of IADR is the fact that the address of IADR's new headquarters is in a city named after the site of the most famous library of the ancient world—a most fitting location for a building which will house the central focus of a worldwide information and communications network related to dental science. Thus, in the very truest sense, this IADR headquarters deserves to be thought of as an international resource belonging to all members of all Divisions of IADR.
We should begin our expression of appreciation by recognizing the individual who first proposed the suggestion that the IADR should purchase its own home. The person with this highly imaginative idea was, of course, Dr. Daniel Green, who made the proposal in 1980 while he was Executive Director of the IADR and AADR. But the thought that either the IADR or the AADR was financially capable of undertaking a capital investment program of large magnitude was too revolutionary at the time. Like many brilliant ideas, it took a germination period of over a decade before Dan's dream became accepted as a practical possibility under President William Bowen's leadership.
While everyone who has contributed thus far to the Headquarters Fund Drive has played an important role in bringing the endeavor to this stage of success, several individuals have played key roles and deserve special mention on this occasion. The Headquarters Building Fund Committee appointed by Dr. Bowen consisted of Paul Goldhaber, Ivar Mjör, Irwin Mandel, Antony Melcher, Marie Nylen, Richard Ranney, Martin Taubman, Ernest Newbrun, William Bowen, John Clarkson, and myself. This group was very helpful in setting the tone of the campaign and the design of the materials for the fund drive. Even more importantly, they set the pace for the campaign by making significant pledges and gifts, most of which were of the leadership category. As a further demonstration that there was a serious commitment to the project, a request for leadership contributions was sent to the Past Presidents of both IADR and AADR. The avalanche of leadership gifts from the majority of this distinguished group of dental scientists was truly inspiring. To demonstrate broad support for the campaign by expanding the number of leadership contributors, William McHugh volunteered to join in co-signing letters to several individuals identified by the Past Presidents and Officers as likely contributors of leadership gifts. Again, the response was gratifying.
It was now time to invite the industrial sector to become a partner in our enterprise. Anthony Volpe suggested that a meeting be held with a few representatives of industry at which time he would attempt to help set reasonable benchmarks for corporate gifts. This historic meeting of the Industrial Leadership Group was held at the Newark Airport on June 2, 1992. In attendance were Michael Barnett of Warner-Lambert, Robert Crawford of Procter & Gamble, Larry Farrell of Butler-Sunstar, Daniel Rosenfield of M & M Mars, Dennis Huston of SmithKline Beecham, and Anthony Volpe of Colgate-Palmolive. The eventual outcome of the advice received at this meeting was four pace-setting corporate contributions from Colgate-Palmolive, Warner-Lambert, Procter & Gamble, and SmithKline Beecham, totaling $175,000. Shortly thereafter, additional corporate leadership gifts totaling $100,000 were received from Unilever and the Oral B Division of Gillette. Carrying the campaign to smaller companies related to dental research, a subcommittee under the leadership of Anthony Picozzi is actively seeking contributions from this industrial sector.
While the steps just described were being undertaken, the Councils of the IADR and AADR were kept informed of the progress of the campaign, and the Divisions and Groups were urged to initiate fund-raising ventures suitable for their situations. From the outset, it was recognized that, because this was an international campaign, the manner and level of participation by various Divisions would vary widely. While this has been true, the response has been most gratifying, and appropriate recognition and expression of appreciation for all these individual efforts are displayed on commemorative plaques in the new headquarters. But it would be remiss not to give special mention at this time to the outstanding success of the campaign in the Japanese Division under the inspired leadership of Mamoru Sakuda. Already nearly half of their membership have made individual contributions, and they have also obtained industrial contributions from GC and LION Corporations totaling $80,000. Encouraged by this success, they are continuing their campaign for another year to give more of their members a chance to participate.
Those who have been Officers of the IADR and AADR during the past four years of the campaign and the Central Office Staff under John Clarkson's leadership have, of course, played crucial roles in making this day of dedication a reality. Without the sound investment of the reserves, without the thorough analysis and documentation of space needs, without the visions of the future provided by the strategic plans, and without strong administrative support to the fund drive, there would have been no bricks and mortar in IADR's future. On behalf of all members of the IADR, I thank each of you most sincerely.
Of course, our job is not finished. There is more fund-raising to do to restore the reserves. But we are dedicating a world headquarters that symbolizes 75 years of achievement for the organization which has played so important a role in advancing the careers of dental scientists everywhere. Therefore, I believe we can be confident that the final goals of the campaign will be met in 1996.
—John W. Hein
Chairman, IADR/AADR Headquarters Fund Drive
1 | 2 | 3 | 4
