Current adoption of the Prosthodontic Diagnostic Index for clinical care-A cross-sectional survey study.

Introduction: To formulate an ideal treatment plan for edentulous patients, data collected from various diagnostic aids need to be structured and classified according to their treatment needs. The lack of structured diagnostic findings for edentulous patients has always been a barrier to effective care for patients. To address these issues, the American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) established the Prosthodontic Diagnostic Index (PDI) based on specific criteria. Aim: To screen and allot completely edentulous patients to students using PDI in a dental school, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 122 completely edentulous patients who visited the outpatient clinic of a dental school in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The edentulous patients based on PDI were classified into four classes (Class I–IV) according to the diagnostic findings based on the complexities. The parameters studied were: mandibular bone height measured on a panoramic radiograph, residual ridge morphology of the maxillary arch, muscle attachments in the mandibular arch, and maxillomandibular relationship. Statistical analyses were performed using counts and percentages. Results: In the overall classification of PDI maximum 52 (42.6%) patients were classified as Class IV. Among the different criteria of PDI, 48 (39.4%) patients exhibited Class III mandibular bone height of 11-15 mm, whereas 40 (32.8%) patients exhibited Class IV mandibular bone height of 10 mm or less. In the maxillary residual ridge morphology, 62 patients (50.8%) were classified as Class I. A large number of patients 84 (70%) had Type A mandibular muscle attachment criteria and were classified as Class I or II. In the maxillomandibular relationship, the maximum number of patients 74 (60.7%) was of Class I. Conclusion: The majority of patients in the study were categorised as Class IV (severely compromised). Edentulous patients must be classified according to PDI during the initial screening phase so that less complex cases (Class I and II) can be allotted to undergraduate students and more complex cases (Class IV) can be handled by prosthodontists or can be referred to specialist centers so that costly and time-consuming remake of complete dentures can be avoided.

Who is an “Orthodontist”? Reprise for 2015

Organization of the findings associated with various diagnostic aids plays a key role in formulating the treatment plan of the patients undergoing dental and medical treatment. Enhanced consistency in diagnosing and classifying prosthodontic patients is the basic purpose of various classification systems. Hence, we planned this study to classify partially edentulous patients and completely dentate patients at the undergraduate clinics using the prosthodontic diagnostic index (PDI). This study included classification of 13,599 edentulous patients who attended the clinics of undergraduate students of all the levels. Screening of all the patients was done radiographically with a digital orthopantomograph (OPG), and the data were saved in the computer system. The intraoral periapical radiographs (IOPA) taken for all the affected areas were also saved in the system. Based on the OPG and IOPA, the patients were classified into various classes. All the data of the patients were recorded and analyzed. Total number of patients screened was 17,220, out of which 3,621 were under 18 years of age and were excluded from the study. Most of the patients belonged to the age group of 31 to 45 years: 5,360 (39.4%) patients (3,817 [43.0%] males and 1,543 [32.5%] females) were class I; 2,730 (20.0%) patients (1,729 [19.5%] males and 1,001 [21.1%] females) were class II; 4,576 (33.7%) patients (2,835 [32.0%] males and 1,741 [36.8%] females) were class III; and 933 (6.9%) patients (483 [5.5%] males and 450 [9.5%] females) were class IV. There is a need to introduce PDI as a screening tool during the initial examination of the patient and to achieve a proper distribution of the patients among various levels of students, interns, and postgraduates. Introduction of PDI will improve the treatment planning and prognosis of edentulous patients.

The aim of this study was to determine the educational methods and tools used to teach tooth prognosis and treatment complexity determination in U.S. predoctoral dental programs. In 2018, an online survey was emailed to the academic deans of all 66 accredited U.S. dental schools. Of these, 42 schools responded (63.6%), and 36 schools completed the entire survey (54.5%). The methods reported for teaching tooth prognosis and case complexity determination varied widely among the participating schools. Among the respondents, 25% reported using the American Association of Endodontists' Endodontic Case Difficulty Assessment, while 10% reported having no specific method for teaching prognosis. The most common method for teaching overall treatment complexity was the Prosthodontic Diagnostic Index, which was used by 24% of the respondents. However, another 24% reported that their school did not have a specific method for teaching treatment complexity. Large percentages of the respondents reported that students sometimes or often made wrong tooth prognosis and case complexity determination (90% and 92%, respectively). The most prominent feedback provided by the respondents based on their experience was the importance of faculty standardization, the understanding of students' inexperience, and the need for an interdisciplinary approach. The majority of these respondents reported that their schools had specific methods of teaching prognosis and case complexity determination. However, there was a wide range of teaching practices related to the contents and levels of evidence.

This study consisted of two parts. Part 1, a survey of program directors, was conducted to examine current trends in advanced education in prosthodontics in the United States. Part 2 will report on the survey results distributed to the deans of US dental schools to evaluate their observations of trends in prosthodontics. A national e-mail survey of 45 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 prosthodontic programs 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. Comments were accepted on why more or less US- or internationally trained applicants have applied. Program directors were also asked for information on student financial incentives, whether their programs were state or federally funded, and whether their sponsoring institution was a dental school. Of the 45 program directors, 39 responded, for an 86.7% response rate. Respondents reported that 64% of their enrollments were graduates of US dental schools. Between 2000 and 2004 the applicant pool in prosthodontics increased by 23%, with 41% of program directors reporting an increase in US-trained applicants, 46.2% reporting no change, and only 12.8% reporting a decrease. Using the Spearman correlation, there was a moderate, positive statistically significant correlation that the following factors contributed to an increase in the number of US dental graduates applying to prosthodontic programs: (1) mentoring by prosthodontists at the predoctoral level, (2) interest in prosthodontics among US dental students, and (3) society's demand for a higher level of training and credentialing, (4) data depicting current and projected income for dental specialists, and (5) number of trained prosthodontists full- or part-time faculty at the predoctoral level. Only five programs offered no financial packages to offset tuition. The remaining 34 respondents reported some financial package. Among the respondents, there were 25 state-sponsored programs, 9 sponsored by private universities, and 5 sponsored by hospitals or federal agencies. An increased applicant pool and more US-trained applicants to prosthodontics programs create a more competitive applicant pool for our specialty. Program directors reported that factors such as mentoring, society's demand for a higher level of training and credentialing, data depicting current and projected income for prosthodontists, exposure to prosthodontic faculty at the predoctoral level, the dollar value of prosthodontic training, and advances in implant, aesthetic, and reconstructive dentistry have all had some impact on increasing the applicant pool to prosthodontic training in the United States.

The aim of this study was to classify a number of completely or partially edentulous patients who attended undergraduate clinics at the Dental School of Athens using the prosthodontic diagnostic index (PDI) to identify the complexity of the cases treated by the students. There is a scarcity of studies, concerning prosthodontic patients and screening them according to a classification system such as the PDI. The survey was conducted on 181 patients who attended the clinics for treatment. The PDI categorised the patients into four classes (Class I-IV) according to the severity of certain diagnostic findings. From the 110 completely edentulous patients, 27 patients were in Class I, 21 in Class II, 15 in Class III and 47 in Class IV. From the 71 partially edentulous patients, two were in Class I, 17 in Class II, 29 in Class III and 23 in Class IV. Our results showed that the majority of patients were categorised in Class III (partially edentulous) and IV (completely edentulous). This indicates the need to introduce a proper screening tool, such as the PDIs, during the initial examination, to achieve a successful treatment.

Objectives: To use the Prosthodontic Diagnostic Index (PDI) to assess and assign fully edentulous patients to students at a dental school in Basrah, Iraq. Material and Methods: This study was conducted on 300 completely edentulous patients who were treated at the teaching outpatient dental prosthetic clinic of a dental school in Basra city, republic of Iraq during the years 2022, 2023, and 2024. Based on the complexity of the diagnostic results, the edentulous patients were divided into four groups (Class I–IV). Maxillomandibular relationship, muscle attachments in the mandibular arch, residual ridge morphology of the maxillary arch, and mandibular bone height were measured in panoramic radiographs. Results: 7.5% of patients were categorized as Class IV when using the PDI classification. Out of the various PDI criteria, 10% of the patients had Class IV mandibular bone heights of 10 mm or below, whereas 15% of the patients had Class III mandibular bone heights of 11–15 mm. Class I was assigned to 65% of the patients based on the maxillary residual ridge morphology, and 25% of the patients were categorized as Class I or II according to their Type A mandibular muscle attachment requirements. 60% of the patients had a Class I maxillomandibular relationship. Conclusion: Class I (severely impaired) patients made up the bulk of the study's subjects. For undergraduate students to handle fewer complex cases (Class I and II) and prosthodontists or specialist centers to handle more complex cases (Class IV), it is necessary to classify edentulous patients based on PDI during the initial screening phase. This will prevent the need for expensive and time-consuming complete denture remakes.

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. 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. 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. 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.

The authors describe the impact of the Title VII, Section 747 Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry (Title VII) grant program on the development, growth, and expansion of general and pediatric dentistry residency programs in the United States. They first briefly review the legislative history of the Title VII program as it pertains to dental education, followed by a historical overview of dental education in the United States, including a description of the differences between dental and medical education and the routes to professional practice. The authors then present an extensive assessment of the role of the Title VII grant program in building general and pediatric dental training capacity, diversifying the dental workforce, providing outreach and service to underserved and vulnerable populations, stimulating innovations in dental education, and engaging collaborative and interdisciplinary training with medicine. Finally, the authors call for broadening the scope of the Title VII program to allow for predoctoral training (dental student education) and faculty development in general and pediatric dentistry. In doing so, the Title VII program can more effectively address current and future challenges in dental education, dentist workforce, and disparities in oral health and access to care.This article is part of a theme issue of Academic Medicine on the Title VII health professions training programs.

The purpose of this study was to survey members of The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) to evaluate current materials and methods for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics in the United States. In addition, those methods were compared with methods and materials taught in U.S. dental schools via a second survey sent to the chairpersons of prosthodontic/restorative departments. An anonymous questionnaire was mailed to all 1762 active ACP members in the United States in 2003. A slightly modified questionnaire was also distributed to chairpersons of prosthodontic/restorative departments in the 54 U.S. dental schools. Data analysis was performed via frequency distribution and chi-square statistics. Nine hundred and forty-five questionnaires were returned by members of the ACP (54% return rate) and 42 questionnaires were returned by the U.S. dental schools (78% return rate). The majority of the reporting prosthodontists (88%) and dental schools (98%) use a border-molded custom tray for final impressions for complete denture prosthodontics. The most popular material for border molding was plastic modeling compound (67% of reporting ACP members, and 95% of the responding dental schools). Variability of the materials used for final impressions was observed, with the most popular materials being polyvinylsiloxane for the ACP members (36%) and polysulfide for the dental schools (64%). Statistically significant differences were found in the materials used for border molding by prosthodontists based on the time elapsed since completion of prosthodontic training. No differences were found in the materials used for impression of edentulous arches based on years of experience. Geographic location did not influence the materials and methods used by prosthodontists for complete denture final impressions. There was variability of the materials and techniques used for final impressions by ACP members and dental schools; however, overall there was an agreement on the materials and techniques used by prosthodontists and dental schools. Distinct trends for increasing use of polyvinylsiloxane and polyether for border molding procedures and impressions of edentulous arches were observed both in members of the ACP and in the U.S. dental schools.

Our world is changing, and with it, academic dentistry must think and act anew! Dental education in the United States and Canada is challenged to produce a culturally and structurally competent workforce that will serve the needs of an aging population and the expectations of an increasingly globally connected and diverse society. As these two countries become even more racially/ethnically diverse, dental education must also increase the number of students of color graduating and entering the oral health professions and expand opportunities for historically underrepresented and marginalized groups to enter the academic ranks and assume leadership positions. Additionally, dental schools play a major role in advancing the care and treatment of underserved and disadvantaged populations. Through their triad missions of education, research, and service, the 68 US dental schools, excluding the four provisional schools, serve as dental “safety nets” for those who lack access to care in the dental private practice system. Since 2011, new dental schools now exist in California, Florida, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah, and additional dental schools are in the planning stages. These new institutions have an opportunity to improve health equity through increased community engagement and academic/community partnerships. Important to their mission, dental schools also serve as bastions for biomedical and behavioral research and transformative curriculum changes that will use newer technology from research and discovery. America has one of the best oral health care delivery systems in the world, as evidenced by outcomes such as a longer lifespan with tooth retention, fluoridated water resulting in a 60% reduction in dental caries, and Americans valuing their oral health as seen in increased annual visits to the dentist for preventive and restorative care.1 However, these data are valid for those who can afford and access dental care. The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) identifies 6803 Dental Health Professional Shortage Areas (DHPSAs) where access to dental care is minimal or missing. An estimated 64 million adults and children reside in these DHPSAs. Additionally, the USPHS estimates that 11,181 more dentists are needed for a dentist-to-U.S.-population ratio of 1:3000.1 The practice of dentistry is changing. As with medicine, dentistry is seeing a decline in solo practice models. Only 24% of the 1381 graduating respondents to the 2021 ADEA Survey of US Dental School Seniors indicated they plan to enter solo practice.2 New dental professionals are emerging, such as dental therapists and community dental health coordinators. New practice models exist in Alaska, Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Three seminal reports, Dental Education at the Crosswords: Challenges and Change,3 Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General,4 and Missing Persons: Minorities in Health Professions,5 continue to influence dental education policy and trends, especially related to health equity, disparities, and access to dental care. Additionally, the 2021 release of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) report, Oral Health in America: Advances and Challenges, serves as a foundation for additional work in these areas.6 On the global health agenda, oral health is no longer a neglected issue. Approximately 3.5 million people throughout the world suffer from oral health diseases, and most of these individuals are socioeconomically disadvantaged or live in poverty. Furthermore, 10% of the world's population has severe periodontal (gum) disease, and globally, an estimated 530 million children suffer from dental caries of primary teeth.7 To call attention to this important issue, the World Health Organization's World Health Assembly adopted a May 2021 resolution on oral health, which also recognizes the intersections between oral health and achieving other United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, such as goal three on health and well-being.8 Additionally, it calls for the development of a framework that aligns oral health and noncommunicable diseases with universal health coverage agendas.9 Within the United States, the Healthy People 2030 initiative (US Department of Health and Human Services) also challenges our ability to reduce caries and improve oral health care.10 As more and more dental education faculty and administrators retire, academic dentistry must address succession planning, improve the representation of historically underrepresented persons in the academic ranks, and strengthen the belongingness factor for women, people of color, and marginalized groups. We must have hard conversations about gender equity and parity, antiracism, immigration, individuals with disabilities/abilities, social determinants of health, universal healthcare, and supporting the LGBTQ+ community. These difficult conversations must include actionable plans with accountability measures and transparency. We must use the data from ADEA's recent climate study of U.S. and Canadian dental schools and allied dental education programs, and other data, to create a culture of respect and design strategies that truly ensure a welcoming, safe, just, and humanistic environment in which all students, faculty, staff, residents, and fellows can succeed and have the resources to become their best. We must not only tangibly demonstrate that we believe in faculty inclusivity, but that the doors of academic dentistry are truly open to everyone. Furthermore, dental education must develop collective partnerships and networks to better invest in and provide more accessible oral health care and considerably expand the equitable pathways and opportunities to become oral healthcare professionals. This issue of the Journal of Dental Education (JDE) forces us to look back as we face not only current and post-pandemic health equity challenges, but also the disruptions which have rocked our society over the last several years and launched major new movements, such as MeToo, Black Lives Matter, Neurodiversity, and Stop Asian American Pacific Islander Hate. However, throughout this issue we also look forward to the future, imagining 21st-century leadership and envisioning an educational system that graduates students who not only have 21st-century competencies but who can address 21st-century complexities. ADEA's initiative “New Thinking for the New Century” is primed to help us embrace these changes and challenges. Lessons from our nation's history, dental education, world events, and current and post-pandemic health equity and economic challenges provide opportunities for transformative changes. Together, we must develop more integrated and resilient health systems and develop strategies to provide more inclusive and humanistic environments in dental education. Opportunities to catalyze institutional changes exist in interprofessional education (IPE), curriculum changes involving academic-community partnerships for community empowerment (ACE), diversifying dental education (DDE), research and technology development (RTD), and academic leadership reimagining (ALR). IPE: Opportunities for curriculum changes exist that improve graduates’ cultural and structural competency and increase access to equitable and affordable healthcare for the underserved. In 1997, only two dental schools had active IPE. Today, IPE is an accreditation mandate that affects all accredited dental schools. Additionally, IPE creates critical connections among students and residents in different health professions and provides early foundational team-based training. This foundational team-based learning provides the building blocks to advance future culturally competent patient-centered models that truly integrate oral, mental, behavioral, and primary health to improve access, patient safety, and treatment quality for persons living in poor, rural, and underresourced communities. ACE: Opportunities exist for sustainable academic-community partnerships that support educational goals and provide dental care to communities via outreach services by dental and dental hygiene students and faculty. The ADEA/W.K. Kellogg Foundation Minority Dental Faculty Development and Inclusion Program provided a model for sustainable partnerships that include pipeline and pathway recruitment, foundation and corporate support for institutional changes, and other resources. DDE: Opportunities to create a more inclusive and humanistic environment across dental education exist not only by participating in the ADEA climate study but through strategic planning and engaging in collective efforts to address key findings. Additionally, expanding pathway initiatives, such as the Summer Health Professions Education Program and the Texas A&M College of Dentistry's Bridge to Dentistry program, provide academic enrichment and career development opportunities to K-16 students who are historically underrepresented in dentistry. The ADEA Faculty Diversity Toolkit is a guide for dental education to develop faculty recruitment and retention plans to address related barriers and challenges.11 ADEA's new strategic recruitment plan, combined with the implementation of a new customer relationship management platform, will allow us to personalize outreach and connect to more diverse students. ADEA's efforts to bring the academic health professions together to increase the number of men of color entering dentistry and other health professions are also important avenues by which we seek to improve access and health equity in the United States. RTD: Opportunities exist for increased collaboration between the NIH and US dental schools through traditional research funding and community-based research grants that focus on improving the health of communities of color. An effort to include more dental schools in program project/center grants will increase patient-centered research and data outcomes. Salivary diagnosis, implantology, artificial intelligence, and robotics offer new avenues for dental discovery, translational research, and research collaboration. ALR: Reimagining leadership training in dental education will be a challenge for the ADEA Leadership Institute, Student Diversity Leadership Program, and other ADEA leadership development programs. Programs such as the Enid A. Neidle Scholar-in-Residence Program for women and the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program at Drexel University will continue to play a major role in developing academic leadership pipeline and pathway programs for the future. The ADEA Chapters for Students, Residents, and Fellows and ADEA's Academic Dental Careers Fellowship Program provide support and training for students interested in academic careers. Reimagining leadership, mentoring, and training programs will increase effective, collaborative, and diverse pathways to academic leadership in the future. Additionally, these mentoring and leadership development programs continue to serve important roles and progress has been made in some areas. For example, at the time of our writing, 25 (30%) of the deans (interim and permanent) at the 82 US and Canadian dental schools (including the four provisional schools) were women.12 In 2022, among deans (interim and permanent) at the 72 US dental schools (including the four provisional schools), 20 (28%) were women.12 Additionally, in 2022, 14 (19%) of the 72 US dental school deans (interim and permanent), including the four provisional schools, were people of color.12 In terms of student diversity at the 68 US dental schools (excluding the four provisional schools), 56% of the 2021 dental school first-time enrollees were women, and 20% of first-time enrollees were from historically underrepresented racially/ethnically diverse student populations.13 Although these numbers show some progress, they also reflect the important work that still needs to be done to expand leadership opportunities, implement succession planning strategies, and increase the number of historically underrepresented and marginalized students, faculty, staff, residents, and fellows in leadership positions throughout all facets of academic dentistry and oral health. The global pandemic has created a crisis with opportunities for collaboration similar to the period of innovation following World War II when battles were won against diseases such as smallpox, diphtheria, and polio. Additionally, dental educational institutions have the chance to not only expand upon gender equality but also lead in framing the dialogue on race and ethnicity to advance health equity and improve pathways and opportunities for historically underrepresented and marginalized students, fellows, faculty, staff, and residents. We do not know where new science, globalization, artificial intelligence, geo-political shifts, cyber threats, innovation, and societal challenges will lead us. However, we do know that global collaboration and resources will be required to build resilient health systems in the future that eliminate disease and promote good health and well-being for all. This includes dental education and oral health organizations working closely with governments, civil societies, the academic health professions, and other key health care and research stakeholders to address the increasing impact of climate threats and environmentally adverse health risks that are disproportionately impacting our most vulnerable populations and overall public health.14, 15 Additionally, our collective efforts will be required to create more inclusive, humanistic, accessible, and equitable environments throughout dental education where each person thrives, feels a strong connection, and has a sense of belonging. Let us, therefore, use this issue of the JDE for personal and institutional reflection to sharpen our moral imaginations and strengthen our dedication to inclusivity and our commitment to health equity. Most of all, let these pages challenge us to both think and act new! The authors have no conflicts of interests. This article is published in the Journal of Dental Education as part of a special issue. Manuscripts for this issue were solicited by invitation and peer reviewed. Any opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the Journal of Dental Education or the American Dental Education Association.

The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of leadership training programs on career development and to gain insight into the perspectives on faculty training programs according to the current US dental school deans. This prospective study analyzed the results of a questionnaire distributed to 67 active Deans of U.S dental schools using a survey instrument that explored the areas of leadership programs that were useful, the support mechanisms received from institutions, and the necessity to integrate formal leadership development programs into training programs for faculty and students. Among 33 participants (49.3% participation rate) in the study, 97% of responders strongly or somewhat agreed that leadership development programs could improve the quality of leadership and administrative skills. The respondents found that the most useful areas in leadership training were conflict resolution, communication skills, organizational change, diversity, inclusion, and belonging. The findings highlighted that critical barriers to accessing leadership training are financial support and lack of protected time for faculty. The results also showed that 73% strongly or somewhat agreed that the leadership training should be integrated into the predoctoral program and 87% into the postdoctoral graduate programs. Participation in formal leadership development programs for faculty leaders in dental education is viewed as beneficial and could offer dental educators leadership training to better navigate the academic environment. The findings suggest the need to further explore the availability and effectiveness of leadership development opportunities for developing current and future educators and administrative leaders.

To survey chairs of prosthodontics or restorative departments and program directors of postdoctoral prosthodontic programs in the United States regarding digital denture fabrication. The key objectives of the survey were to identify the current trends in complete denture fabrication using CAD/CAM technology and to determine how and to what extent this technique is taught and used in U.S. pre- and postdoctoral prosthodontic programs. An invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to 52 prosthodontics/restorative chairs of U.S. dental schools and to all of the 50 program directors of postdoctoral prosthodontics programs. A version of the survey with the same questions was sent to a national sample of prosthodontics/restorative chairs and program directors of postdoctoral prosthodontics. The 20-item survey took approximately 15 minutes to complete. Dependent samples paired t-test was run on items that were the same in both surveys. The response rate for the survey was 63% for department chairs and 44% for program directors. All respondents with the exception of one department chair were aware of CAD/CAM technology used for denture fabrication. More than half of the program directors (52.4%) compared to 12.1% of chairs have incorporated some aspects of CAD/CAM denture fabrication technology into their curriculum. When asked if the fabrication cost prevented introducing this technology in the predoctoral/postdoctoral curriculum, 52.4% of the department chairs affirmed this response compared to 12.1% of the program directors. There was a significant difference between groups when asked if they had incorporated the CAD/CAM denture fabrication technique into the postgraduate/predoctoral curriculum. Department chairs reported less usage of CAD/CAM technology. Only 12.1% of department chairs reported using some aspects of CAD/CAM technology in the predoctoral curriculum compared to 52.4% in the postdoctoral curriculum (F = 13.528, p ≤ 0.001). While this technology is used in four predoctoral clinics, none of the chairs reported including CAD/CAM denture fabrication in their preclinical complete denture courses. For the schools using the technology, 33.3% of postdoctoral and 30.3% of predoctoral programs use it to make a denture with a try-in step; however, 19% of the postdoctoral and 18.2% of predoctoral programs process the dentures without a try-in appointment. Slightly less than half (42.9%) of graduate programs are using the technology to make just the denture bases. Only a small proportion (10% or less) of the total number of dentures processed in post- and predoctoral programs are made using CAD/CAM technology. The proportion of postdoctoral programs that process cases using CAD/CAM technology was significantly higher than in predoctoral programs (F = 5.106, p ≤ 0.028). Many schools indicated that they are in a "trial phase" to evaluate the technique, especially at the predoctoral level. Also, 19% (n = 4) of postdoctoral and 15.2% (n = 5) of predoctoral respondents have created continuing education courses. Of postdoctoral programs, 38.1% (n = 8) plan to introduce this technology at some point in the near future (next 1 to 4 years); 27.3% of predoctoral programs plan to as well. All program directors and department chairs who participated in the survey are aware of this technology with the exception of one department chair. More than half of the program directors reported that they have incorporated this technology in their curricula compared to only 12% of department chairs. Currently, only 10% or less of complete denture cases are processed using the CAD/CAM technology, at either the post- or predoctoral levels. Both groups reported that the main use of this technology is for the fabrication of denture bases and for processing dentures including the try-in step. The majority of respondents in both groups indicated they plan to add digital denture fabrication into their curricula within the next 1 to 4 years.

the purpose of the study was to explore the structure of oral medicine (OM) education in predoctoral dental programs in the United States and to evaluate the students' perception of OM as a dental specialty. Two anonymous Qualtrics surveys (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA) were distributed electronically to the academic deans of all the Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) accredited dental schools in the United States. Upon completing the survey, the academic deans were asked to forward the student surveys to their students. Note that 26.8% (18/67 dental schools) of academic deans that participated in the survey, 224 senior students responded to the student survey. The results showed that the median number of OM specialists involved in teaching OM to predoctoral students was two. Oral cancer screening and diagnosis and management of oral mucosal diseases were identified by the majority of respondents (95.7%; n=214 and 96.5%; n=216), respectively, as part of the scope of practice of OM specialists. Although most students reported Advanced Education in General Dentistry (AEGD) and General Practice Residency (GPR) (18.67% n=42 each) as postgraduate specialties of interest, students' positive impression in OM increased by a crude average of 0.4 with each additional OM faculty member in the school (p=0.000; 95% CI 0.207-0.594). OM faculty members are in an important position to enhance dental students' perception and interest in OM as a specialty, which would lead to improved awareness of the scope of the specialty and consideration of pursuing specialty training.

“Considering that this is such a rare condition, should we really be expected to recognize it?”