Premium
Ten‐Year Survey of Program Directors: Trends, Challenges, and Mentoring in Prosthodontics. Part 1
Author(s) -
Munoz Deborah M.,
Kinnunen Taru,
Chang Brian M.,
Wright Robert F.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2011.00741.x
Subject(s) - prosthodontics , medical education , medicine , program director , family medicine , psychology , dentistry
Purpose: This study consisted of two parts. Part 1 was a survey of US program directors, and Part 2 reports on the survey findings distributed to the deans of US dental schools. Both surveys evaluated observations of trends in prosthodontic education. The first survey (2005) of program directors and deans was published in 2007. This second survey was conducted in 2009. The 2009 survey provided 10‐year data on trends in prosthodontics as reported by program directors. Materials and Methods: A national e‐mail survey of 46 program directors was used to collect enrollment data for years 1 to 3 of prosthodontics training for US and international dental school graduates, the total number of applicants and applications considered, and the trends over time of applicants to prosthodontics for US dental school graduates and for international graduates. In addition, the program directors were asked to rank 13 key factors that may have contributed to any changes in the prosthodontic applicant pool. Program directors were also asked for information on student financial incentives and whether their programs were state or federally funded, and whether their sponsoring institution was a dental school. Results: Of the 46 program directors, 40 responded, for an 87% response rate. Respondents reported that 66% of their enrollees were graduates of US dental schools. Between 2000 and 2009 the applicant pool in prosthodontics nearly doubled, with 50% of the program directors reporting an increase in US‐trained applicants, 42.5% reporting no change, and only 7.5% reporting a decrease. Using the Spearman correlation for the 10‐year survey, there was a positive, statistically significant correlation that society's demand for a higher level of training and credentialing and interest in prosthodontics among dental students contributed to an increase in the number of US dental graduates applying to prosthodontic programs. Only four programs offered no financial packages to offset tuition. The remaining 36 respondents reported some financial package. Among the respondents, there were 23 state‐sponsored programs and 6 sponsored by private universities; the remaining 9 were sponsored by hospitals or federal agencies. Conclusions: A nearly doubled applicant pool and more US‐trained applicants to prosthodontics ensure a much more competitive applicant pool for our specialty. In the 2009 survey, program directors reported that factors such as society's demand for a higher level of training and credentialing, interest in prosthodontics among US dental students, advances in implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry, literature pertaining to the need of prosthodontists for the future, marketing of prosthodontics as a career, and the dollar value of prosthodontic training have all had some impact on increasing the mentored applicant pool to prosthodontic training in the United States.