Skip to content
International Association for Dental Research at a glanceAlso receives grants: funding profile →

· Public charity

International Association for Dental Research

Drive dental, oral, and craniofacial research for health and well-being worldwide.

$662k
Granted FY2023
3
Grants FY2023
3
States reached
$50k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2023.

Health$1.1MScience & Tech$12k
02FY2023 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 3 grants below total $108,750, the rows itemized in this filing. The $661,814 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $553,064 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2023

  • $10k–50k2 grants · $59k
  • $50k–250k1 grant · $50k
$33,750
Median grant
3
States reached
$17M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO$50,000
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL$33,750
LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY$25,000
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY18–23) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 94% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: $20k → 11%THE TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $50k → 22%LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY: $50k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: $75k → 15%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN - SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY OFFICE OF R: $75k → 14%OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $50k → 12%UNIV OF NC AT CHAPEL HILL: $75k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $50k → 9%AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION: $50k → 14%LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY: $25k → 14%THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: $50k → 15%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $75k → 14%UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $34k → 13%UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO: $50k → 14%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $50k → 14%THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN - SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY OFFICE OF R: $50k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

WA
MN
IL
MI
OR
IA
PA
CT
CA
NC

Grants abroad, by region: $505k on the FY2024 return

Schedule F, as filed: 8 regions, $75k to organizations and $430k to individuals. The IRS asks for region and purpose, not the recipient, so no country or grantee can be named here.

Middle East and North Africa$153k · 30% · 19 people

Stated purpose: IADR CENTENNIAL TRAVEL AWARD FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS · IADR HATTON AWARDS- JUNIOR- 2ND PLACE · IADR HATTON AWARD AND REGISTRATION

East Asia and the Pacific$120k · 24% · 2 grants · 51 people

Stated purpose: OTHER AWARDS · IADR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM · DSA AWARD IN GERIATRIC ORAL RESEARCH

Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)$76k · 15% · 41 people

Stated purpose: DSA ORAL MEDICINE & PATHOLOGY RESEARCH AWARD · DSA PHARMACOLOGY/THERAPEUTICS/TOXICOLOGY RESEARCH AWARD · DSA RESEARCH IN ORAL BIOLOGY AWARD

North America (Canada and Mexico)$65k · 13% · 12 people

Stated purpose: IADR HATTON AWARD AND REGISTRATION · IADR INNOVATION IN ORAL CARE AWARDS · IADR LION DENTAL RESEARCH AWARDS- ORAL HEALTH RESEARCH

Sub-Saharan Africa$50k · 10% · 1 grant · 6 people

Stated purpose: IADR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM · IADR CENTENNIAL TRAVEL AWARD FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS · IADR HATTON AWARD AND REGISTRATION

South America$34k · 7% · 27 people

Stated purpose: IADR CENTENNIAL TRAVEL AWARD FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS · IADR HATTON AWARDS-SENIOR BASIC- 2ND PLACE · IADR HATTON AWARD AND REGISTRATION

South Asia$5k · 1% · 3 people

Stated purpose: IADR HATTON AWARD AND REGISTRATION · IADR DAVID B. SCOTT FELLOWSHIP

Caribean$1k · 0% · 1 person

Stated purpose: IADR HATTON AWARD AND REGISTRATION

How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving. Grants abroad on Schedule F are filed by region, purpose and amount with no recipient name, so they are shown by region and cannot be placed on the country map or matched to a grantee.
04

Where the work is directed

The same grants placed two ways: where each recipient sits, and where its stated purpose sends the money.

About 28% of International Association for Dental Research’s grant dollars are earmarked for a different county than the recipient’s own address.

International Association for Dental Researchlessmore of its giving
Placed by recipient address · 58% directed abroad (not shown)
How this is measured
Recipient view: each grant at its grantee’s ZIP, mapped to a county. Directed view: each grant at the county its stated purpose names, falling back to the recipient’s county when the purpose names no place; US grants only. A county shows only if it carries the top 95% of that view’s dollars. Purposes are read from the funder’s own 990 grant descriptions.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

51%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$484k · 3 repeat orgs$467k to everyone else

3 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2023, 2 since wound down; 1 grantees were first funded in FY2023 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

3
8

Total granted

$484k
$417k

Still filing today

0%
25%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2023, 40% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23
RenewedFirst-time
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • RO
    REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
    3× · 2018–2022 · $250k
  • SU
    State University of Iowa
    2× · 2020–2022 · $125k
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
    2× · 2021–2023 · $109k

Funded once

  • UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION
    one grant, 2020 · $75k · revenue 0%
  • UO
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO
    one grant, 2017 · $62k
  • RU
    REGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIA
    one grant, 2019 · $60k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field
05the grantee network

5 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 5 of the 14 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
0
Early backer (in before they grew)
5/5
Grantees still filing
4/5
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: $250,000 · OtherREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGANState University of Iowa: $125,000 · OtherState University of IowaUNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL: $108,750 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILLUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO: $61,625 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCOREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: $60,000 · OtherREGENTS UNIV OF CALIFORNIAAmerican Dental Association: $50,000 · OtherAmerican Dental AssociationUNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: $50,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUTOREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY: $50,000 · OtherOREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON: $50,000 · OtherUNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON+1 more: $20,083 · OtherLOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY: $75,000 · EducationLOMA LINDA UNIVERSITYUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $75,000 · EducationUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA S…University of Chicago: $50,000 · EducationUniversity of ChicagoTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $50,000 · EducationTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY…
Other$825,458Education$250,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%grantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetLOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY: $75,000 over 2y, 0.0% of budgetUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION: $75,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetUniversity of Chicago: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetAmerican Dental Association: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetTRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: $50,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

  • Who funds LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY ↗
  • Who funds UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION ↗
  • Who funds University of Chicago ↗
  • Who funds American Dental Association ↗
  • Who funds TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ↗

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization International Association for Dental Research funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from International Association for Dental Research. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%0%1%3%5%funder's share of their income ↑0%5%10%15%20%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–20%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
    05Through Plinth

    Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

    How do I get to International Association for Dental Research?

    Find your warmest path to International Association for Dental Research through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

    Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 14 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2023, released 2023. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Possibly out of date. A more recent filing (FY2024) is on record and reports $616k of grant expense, but none of it to a named recipient. On a Form 990 that can mean grants abroad, filed by region only (Schedule F), grants under $5,000, which are not itemized, or a schedule referenced as an attachment the e-file does not carry. The figures above are therefore from FY2023, the most recent year this funder named its grantees.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on International Association for Dental Research’s filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home