Oral And Maxillofacial Surgery Residents Research Articles

Kern's six-step approach allows for meaningful implementation of an orthognathic surgery training course.

This study investigated the effectiveness of simulation training in improving the confidence and competency of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residents in performing orthognathic surgery (OGS). Kern's six-step approach was applied when designing the simulation training for OMS residents. The difficulties encountered by the residents when learning OGS were considered when designing the training program. A training course consisting of didactic sessions, hands-on training on three-dimensional training models, and an assessment tool was implemented for OMS residents. Improvement in the confidence and competence of OMS residents in performing OGS, fidelity of the three-dimensional models, and satisfaction with the course was evaluated. All OMS residents (10/10) completed the course. The perceived difficulty in learning OGS was mainly related to the manipulation of the jawbones. While there were improvements in the median confidence and competence scores (3/5 to 4/5), only the differences in competence were found to be statistically significant (p<0.01, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Improvements in confidence and competence did not correlate. The mean fidelity scores of both the maxillary and mandibular models were adequate at 3.2 out of 5. Overall, satisfaction with the course was high (5/5). The six-step approach provides a guided process for educators to formulate a training course directed toward the perceived needs of students. Targeted training can significantly enhance the students' competence. Greater efforts should also be put in place to allow simultaneous developments in the students' confidence along with their competence.

Pediatric dentistry, prosthodontics, and oral and maxillofacial surgery residents' stress, career satisfaction, and gender-based discrimination/harassment.

Dental residents experience high stress in their demanding programs and gender-based harassment/discrimination can contribute to their stress. The objectives were to compare stress, satisfaction, experienced sexual harassment and observed discrimination of women in dental graduate programs with high, medium, and low percentages of women and to explore relationships between these constructs of interest. Note that, 112 pediatric dentistry (PD), 44 prosthodontics, and 56 oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residents responded to a survey. PD residents had the lowest personal life-related stress (4-point scale with 4=very stressful: PD=2.99/P=3.67/OMS=3.56; p<0.001), faculty-related stress (2.68/3.66/3.03; p<0.001), lack of confidence-related stress (2.79/3.31/2.96; p<0.01) and academic stress (2.65/3.24/3.02; p<0.001), while prosthodontics residents had the highest stress levels. The average frequency of experiencing sexual harassment was highest for OMS residents and lowest for PD residents (5-point scale with 1=never: 1.15/2.62/2.74; p<0.001). PD residents observed least and OMS residents most frequently that female residents were treated less positively by other residents because of their gender (1.59/2.57/3.00; p <0.001). Prosthodontics residents had the lowest job satisfaction score (5-point scale with 1=lowest satisfaction: 4.12/3.14/4.20; p<0.001). The more frequently male and female residents experienced sexual harassment, the higher their personal life-related stress, faculty-related stress, lack of confidence-related stress, and academic stress, and the lower their career satisfaction, specialty content satisfaction, and stress-related satisfaction. Women's frequencies of observed gender-based discrimination were associated with higher stress and lower satisfaction, while men's frequencies of these observations were not associated with stress, but associated with increased satisfaction. Dental residents' stress, career satisfaction, experienced sexual harassment, and observed discrimination of women residents differ depending on the dental specialty program. Both male and female residents report more stress and less satisfaction the more they experience sexual harassment. The more women observe discrimination of women, the more stressed and the less satisfied they are. For men, the frequencies of these observations are not associated with stress, but positively associated with increased satisfaction.

To what extent do oral and maxillofacial surgery residents suffer from imposter syndrome?

ObjectivesThis study aims to evaluate frequency and severity of Imposter Syndrome (IS) in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residents and identify factors associated with higher Clance Imposter Phenomenon Survey (CIPS) scores. Study DesignA cross-sectional study was performed with a survey including CIPS, demographic, and training program structure questions distributed to all OMS training programs and residents in the United States. Primary predictor variable was gender and main outcome variable was CIPS score. Statistical analyses were performed using linear regression in R v4.3.1; statistical significance was set to p-value < .05. Results175 OMS residents responded. The average CIPS score was 59.8 (IQR 52, 70). Statistically significant differences were found between average male and female resident scores (56.5 vs. 66.9; p<.001) and male and female single-degree residents (54.3 vs. 73.1; p<.001), but not for dual-degree residents (58.8 vs. 63.9; p=.35). ConclusionsThe average male resident experiences moderate IS, while the average female resident experiences frequent IS. Loss of significance between male and female dual-degree resident scores may be due to the completion of a doctoral degree, an internship, and/or dental board exams upon entering medical school, leading to more favorable accomplishment comparisons among medical school peers.

Barriers to research among residents in oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Research is an integral part of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residency training. This study aimed to identify the current barriers perceived by OMS residents toward conducting research during training. A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted. The survey was distributed to 670 OMS residents across the United States in 2021 and consisted of questions regarding demographics, residency program requirements and resources, and perceived barriers to research. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and post hoc Dunn's test with a statistical significance of P<0.05. The response rate was 24.2%. Most participants' programs had a minimum research requirement to complete a residency (80%). The top three reported barriers to completing research were lack of time (84%), limited access to research mentors or supervisors (37%), and lack of access to biostatistical support (31%). Factors associated with these barriers included the lack of a research director, supervisor, mentor, assistant, or statistician. There was no significant difference between residents in programs with protected research time versus those without. OMS residents generally viewed research experience during residency as beneficial but reported important barriers, most notably: insufficient time. Although most OMS training programs in the US require research for completion, many do not provide adequate time to facilitate this process. Compared with literature from over a decade ago, it appears little progress has been made to remedy similar barriers to research. Addressing this deficiency may increase the quantity and quality of research, furthering the profession.

Interest in global surgery rotations among oral and maxillofacial surgical residents in the United States.

This study sought to assess interest in global surgery rotations among current United States (US)-based oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residents. An anonymous 23-question survey was distributed to 633 current OMS residents in the US to examine resident interest in global surgery rotations during residency. The primary outcome variable was resident interest in participating in global OMS rotations during residency training, whereas the primary predictor variable was the presence of residency faculty involved in global OMS work. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all study variables and univariate/multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of interest in global OMS rotations. A total of 120 residents with an average age of 30.4±3.2 years responded to the survey. At present, 22 (18.5%) residents stated that their residency programs offer some sort of global OMS rotation and 21 (95.5%) of these claimed they were willing to participate in global OMS rotations at their residency program. Out of the residents who stated their program did not offer a global OMS rotation, 86 (87.8%) respondents stated they would be interested in adding a dedicated global OMS rotation to their residency curriculum. The presence of OMS residency faculty involved in global OMS work (p=0.030) and a resident's willingness to dedicate vacation time to participate in a global surgery rotation (p=0.005) were associated with increased interest in a global surgery rotation. The majority of respondents would welcome a dedicated global OMS rotation during their residency training.

The Everlasting Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Match

The Everlasting Effects of the Covid-19 Pandemic on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Match

A Snapshot on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Resident Scholarly Activity: Can We Do Better?

The Commission on Dental Accreditation (CODA) requires oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residents to engage in scholarly activity. Currently, it is unknown how this mandate translates into research output. The purpose of this study was to quantify the research output of OMS residents. In addition, we sought to identify characteristics associated with resident productivity. This was a cross-sectional study of all OMS residents during the 2021-2022 academic year. Attempts were made to obtain resident rosters from every CODA-accredited OMS program. Resident names were searched in PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) to identify peer-reviewed publications. Postgraduate year (PGY), program name, and total publication count during residency were recorded for each resident. Academic status and fellowship affiliation of the residency program were also included. The primary predictor was PGY level of each resident. The main outcome variable was the publication count of each OMS resident during the 2021-2022 academic year. The covariates were the academic status and the fellowship affiliation of the residency program. A program was determined academic if they were associated with a dental or medical school. Aprogram was determined fellowship associated if they had any CODA approved fellowship. Simple bivariate comparisons were performed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Complete resident rosters were identified for 87 residency programs. One thousand one hundred thirty two residents were queried and a total of 548 peer-reviewed publications were identified. There was a mean of 6.30 publications per program and 0.43 publications per resident. More than half of all residents had no identifiable publication. PGY5 residents averaged the most publications per resident (1.45) followed by PGY6 (1.04) and PGY4 (0.63). Academic programs had significantly more publications per resident than nonacademic programs (median of 3.00 vs 0.00, P=.02). Programs with a fellowship association also had more publications per resident (median of 5.00 vs 2.00, P<.01). Current CODA research requirements do not translate into resident publications. Publication counts appeared to slightly increase with PGY level; however, OMS resident productivity still lags far behind that of other surgical subspecialties.

Is the Comprehensive Basic Science Examination Still Useful in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residency Application Process?

For any dental student interested in pursuing a career in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS), perhaps the biggest barrier to overcome is passing the Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (CBSE), a 200-question multiple choice test written by the National Board of Medical Examiners designed to prepare medical students for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1.1 Prior to having the CBSE as a requirement for OMS residency applications, board scores from National Board Dental Examination (NBDE) were considered as a benchmark to compare applicants across all dental schools.

Residency Education in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A New Curriculum Framework.

Residency education in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) exists in an environment of transformation unlike anything seen in the past. Changes in American society accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic are impacting all of health-care education and demand a comprehensive response by OMS programs and in standards for education. The oral health in America report of the National Institutes of Health and actions of the American Council on Graduate Medical Education provides a new framework for structuring and adapting OMS programs. These include incorporating the Quadruple Aims and ACGME core competencies into OMS education. The evolution of clinical education is being adapted to changes in technology and the American higher education environment. A changing workforce and practice model combined with today's technology revolution are being incorporated into OMS residency education.

Do academic Affiliated OMS Programs Recruit Residents With More Scholarly Activity Compared to Nonacademic Affiliated Programs?

The purpose of this study is to assess the academic productivity of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residents throughout their training. The authors of this study hypothesize that OMS residents at academic and fellowship associated programs publish more than OMS residents at nonacademic and non-fellowship programs. CODA-accredited OMS programs were queried for a list of current enrolled residents during the 2021 to 2022 academic year. Of the 90 civilian OMS programs, complete lists of residents were identified in 74 programs.

Barriers to Research Among Residents in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Research is fundamental to the development of evidence-based medicine, which contributes to improved patient outcomes. The Commission on Dental Accreditation deem research experience to be an integral part of the oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residency training program. This study aims to characterize the current attitudes and perceived barriers by residents in conducting research during OMS residency. The materials and methods of this study employed an anonymous web-based survey, which was randomly sent to 600 residents across the country.

What do dental students expect from oral and maxillofacial surgery externships?

Limited information exists on the goals and expectations of dental students from oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) externships. This information is valuable to OMS residency programs. Dental students use externships to gain insight into various OMS residency programs. The purpose of this project was to answer the following question: "what do dental students expect from OMS externships?" The aim of this study was to report the expectations of dental students from OMS externships. This cross-sectional study took place from June 2015 to September 2019. Every student completing an Emory OMS externship completed an anonymous survey. The survey consisted of questions regarding (1)demographics, (2) previous OMS experience, and (3) open-ended questions regarding expectations and sources of anxiety. Answers were grouped into categories with similar answers. Descriptive statistics summarized data. Of 116 externs who completed the survey, the majority were males (n=80, 68.9%) with a mean age of 25 (range 21-30) years old in the 3rd/4th year of dental school. Most had previous OMS experience (n=103, 89.6%) and plan to apply to OMS residency (n=104, 90.4%). Most externs hoped to learn about life as a resident and the scope and culture of the program. Externs expressed the highest level of anxiety regarding their own experience and/or knowledge level. This project demonstrated that during the externship, externs expect to gain insight into the daily activities, scope, and culture of the OMS program they are visiting.

To What Extent is Each Area of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery Practiced in the United States Today?

To What Extent is Each Area of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery Practiced in the United States Today?

Meet the Founding Resident Ambassador: John M. Le, DDS, MD

We are happy to continue adopting the best global publishing experience and traditions into the new year of 2022. To start off, we are honored to adopt the progressive tradition held by Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) journal. As a phenomenal journal with more than 75 years of publishing developments, PRS serves as a trailblazer for the Journal of Diagnostics and Treatment of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology. The PRS Editorial Board founded the Resident Ambassador position in 2014 after an unofficial Resident Advisory Board (RAB) meeting of four residents at the 2013 Annual Meeting.2 And now after 7 years, the PRS and PRS Global RAB includes more than 70 members across the world with six PRS and PRS Global Open Resident Ambassadors.2 The RAB serves both PRS and their daughter journal – Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (PRS Global Open). The key missions for the members of the RAB are to participate in three of five activities: (1) the PRS journal club on Facebook, (2) the PRS Grand Rounds (a multipronged and multitopic live lectures with question-and-answer series)2 via Facebook, (3) creation of PRS promoting videos on their own social media pages, (4) supporting PRS and PRS Global Open as a peer-reviewers, and (5) voting on the journal’s social media pages. The search for a true leader to take on the role as the Founding Resident Ambassador for the Journal of Diagnostics and Treatment of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology was an uneasy task. After an extensive search, we are honored to start a collaboration with an oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) resident from the state of Alabama in the United States of America. John M. Le, DDS, MD and his colleagues in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University of Alabama at Birmingham have made a serious impact on global oral and maxillofacial surgery specialty. Moreover, their article contribution to our journal in 2020 made a huge influence by attracting an international community of readers to our journal, making us enormously proud. The masterpiece was dedicated to the use of zygomatic implants for restoration of complex nasal defects. Thereby, the current academic achievements and research activities of Dr. Le serves as a model for other OMS residents in training. In general, his clinical interests include, but is not limited to head, neck and oral oncology and reconstructive surgery.

Parental Policy in OMS Residency Programs is Necessary but Unavailable: Cross-sectional Survey of OMS Resident Attitudes toward Parental Leave

Guidelines regarding parental leave in oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) do not exist. This inconsistency may contribute to gender disparities and an increase in resident burnout. The purpose of this study was to examine perceptions and attitudes of OMS residents toward parental leave.This was a cross-sectional study in which an anonymous 28-item questionnaire was electronically mailed to all current residents in OMS residency programs in the United States during August 2020. The survey consisted of 5 sections: 1) resident demographics (age, gender, parental status), 2) residency program information (geographic location, MD/non-MD status), 3) parental policy information (presence of formal parental leave policy, time allowed for parental leave, requirements associated with time off, on-call duties for parental leave), 4) attitudes regarding parental leave (regarding additional on-call time, performance, emotions toward parental time off, program support during pregnancy), 5) resident well-being (lactation facilities, availability of childcare).Statistical analysis was completed using R statistical software (Version 4.0.3). Descriptive statistics were completed. Univariate analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for ordinal outcome and categorical exposure. Fisher exact test for categorical outcome and categorical exposure and the Spearman test to analyze correlation between an ordinal outcome and an ordinal exposure were conducted. Statistical significance was 2-sided P-values < .05.Surveys were sent to 860 OMS residents; 220 completed the questionnaire (25.6%). The majority of respondents were male (n = 156, 70.9%) between the ages of 26-30 (n = 114, 51.8%). Respondents had no children (n = 135, 61.4%), had at least 1 child during residency (n = 60, 27.3%), were currently expecting (n = 14, 6.4%), or had a child prior to residency (n = 11, 5%). Half of the respondents did not know whether their OMS program had a formal parental leave policy (n = 110, 50%). Almost one-third of OMS residents reported that their program did not have a policy regarding parental leave (n = 60, 27.3%). Some programs had a policy regarding parental leave (n = 38, 17.3%) or only regarding maternity leave (12, 5.5%). Most programs allotted 2-6 days (n = 26, 11.8%) or 1-2 weeks (n = 16, 7.3%) off.Residents felt that their co-residents usually gave enough notice for parental leave (n = 74, 33.6%). Pregnancy was reported to the program director in the first trimester (n = 25, 11.4%) or second trimester (34, 15.5%). Some residents reported no negative emotions from the program (n = 43, 19.6%) and co-residents regarding parental leave (n = 51, 23.2%). Most respondents felt that parental leave is fair in their program (n = 170, 77.3%). During parental leave, residents found support in family (n = 45, 20.5%), co-residents (n = 20, 9.1%), and/or attendings (n = 3, 1.4%).Some residents believed that becoming a parent positively impacted their performance (n = 28, 12.7%). Some residents believed that residency had a negative impact on their performance as a parent (n = 41, 18.6%). Parenthood did not prevent pursuit of fellowship training (n = 44, 20%). The majority of co-residents indicated that parenthood had a neutral (n = 64, 29.1%), negative (n = 18, 8.2%), or positive (n = 16, 7.3%) impact on the performance of their colleagues. Respondents indicated that their program/hospital has lactation facilities (n = 57, 25.9%) and/or childcare services (n = 47, 21.4%).The researchers found that most residents are supportive of parental leave despite the lack of a formal policy in their programs. For those residents who conceived during residency, the time allowed for parental leave was on average 1-2 weeks in length, considerably less than what is allowed in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Additionally, parental status did not have an effect on a resident's decision to pursue fellowship training. In conclusion, parental leave guidelines within the OMS specialty are needed to support the integration of family with postgraduate OMS training and to encourage the pursue of the specialty.

Validation of a Microsurgery Simulation for Use in an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Training Curriculum

BackgroundApplications of microsurgery are evolving and expanding within oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS).1 While a variety of surgical subspecialties are embracing microsurgery as a core component of their training programs, a validated microsurgery curriculum in the OMS specialty is lacking. Microsurgery requires fine motor skills developed with consistent practice and frequent exposure, which is ideally obtained early in training and developed over time and experience. Unfortunately, many barriers exist that limit residents from achieving early exposure and competence in microsurgery upon residency graduation.2 The objective of this study was to evaluate 2 low-cost microscopes and 2 simulation vessels for use in a training curriculum. The primary outcome was readiness of the simulation to be used in a microsurgical curriculum. Secondary outcomes were realism, value, usefulness, difficulty, and cost of the simulation. MethodsA microvascular anastomosis simulation exercise was developed. Seven surgeons were tasked with completing an end-to-end anastomosis on both a silicone vessel and a chicken thigh femoral artery vessel on 2 table-top microscopes. These microscopes were a monocular digital microscope (Plugable USB 2.0 Digital Microscope) and a binocular stereo microscope (AmScope 7x-45x Stereo Binocular Microscope). The surgeons comprising the expert panel were all microvascular-trained surgeons in the departments of oral and maxillofacial surgery (n = 5), plastic and reconstructive surgery (n = 1), and otolaryngology (n = 1). The surgeons performed the simulation independently, without an assistant. Upon completion of the simulation, the surgeons were asked to complete a survey to evaluate the simulation across multiple domains. Likert responses were coded into numeric values (e.g., “strongly disagree” = 1, “somewhat disagree” = 2, etc.), and means and standard deviations were reported. Paired T-tests were used to compare responses to analogous questions regarding the microscopes and simulation vessels. Analyses were performed in SAS V9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). ResultsSeven surgeons completed the simulation exercise and survey. The stereo microscope simulation scored significantly higher in “readiness for use” in a microsurgery curriculum than the digital microscope (P = .002). All 7 surgeons indicated that the stereo microscope simulation, in conjunction with silicone and chicken vessels, could be used in a microsurgery curriculum in its current state (n = 4) or with minimal modification (n = 3). All 7 respondents indicated that the digital microscope simulation required considerable modification (n = 4) or extensive modification with re-evaluation (n = 3) before use. The stereo microscope significantly outperformed the digital microscope in depth perception (P < .001), field of view (P = .038), lighting (P = .038), and clarity (P = .030). The respondents strongly agreed that the binocular microscope was a low-cost and high-value training simulation (mean: 4.86 out of 5.00, SD = 0.38). Both microscopes were “very useful” for practicing microsurgical technique, allowing early access to training and improving hand-eye coordination. The chicken vessel significantly outperformed the silicone vessel in realism of tissue handling (P < .001), passing the needle (P = .007), vessel orientation (P = .035), and knot-tying (P = .005). ConclusionA microsurgical training curriculum using the stereo or digital table-top microscopes in conjunction with chicken thigh or silicone vessels demonstrates value for OMS residency education, with the stereo microscope and the chicken thigh outperforming their counterparts. The microsurgery simulation is a low-cost, high-value option that is ready for use in microsurgery training.

Are Women Adequately Represented in Leadership Roles in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery? A 10-year Retrospective Evaluation of Society Leadership and Journal Editorial Boards

Surgical specialties have traditionally been considered male-dominated fields within medicine. Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) is also a surgical subspecialty whose practitioners largely comprise of men. While many factors contribute to the perpetuation of these trends, past studies have identified the significance of female role models in the decision to pursue a surgical field for female students. The authors thus sought to analyze female representation within key societies and journal editorial boards that play central roles in the academic advancement, organization, and clinical practice of oral and maxillofacial surgery in the United States (US).A retrospective review of 2 major OMS journals, the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (JOMS) and Oral Surgery Oral Medicine Oral Pathology Oral Radiology (OOOO), and six OMS professional and academic societies, including the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS), American College of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (ACOMS), American Board of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (ABOMS), American Academy of Craniomaxillofacial Surgeons (AACMFS), OMS Foundation, Osteo Science Foundation, was conducted. The names and genders of the members of the editorial board and board of directors between 2011 and 2020 were acquired from their respective sources. Only verified OMSs were included, while non-OMS clinicians and administrative staff were excluded from the final count. OMSs from countries other than the US were also excluded. A line of best fit was determined using simple linear regression to demonstrate temporal trends in female representation in editorial boards and society leadership. The proportion of female OMS faculty and female OMS residents was obtained from AAOMS. Either the Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportion of female representation in editorial boards and society leadership with the proportion of full-time female OMS faculty.During the study period of the past 10 years, female representation on the editorial boards of OMS journals grew from 4.5% in 2011 to 10.6% in 2020 (Figure 1). A growth from 3.0% in 2011 to 10.3% in 2020 was similarly observed for the proportion of women in society leadership (Figure 2). The proportion of women in editorial boards (8.9%) did not differ from that of full-time female OMS faculty (11.4%) in 2019 (P = .80). Similarly, female representation on society leadership (10.5%) was not different from that of full-time female OMS faculty in 2019 (P = .84).Although there are significantly fewer female surgeons on OMS journal editorial boards and the boards of OMS societies compared to that of male surgeons, the proportion of female representation in these organizations has been growing over the past decade. Currently, the authors found that women seem to be adequately represented in editorial boards and society leadership in the OMS field.

Expectations, Experiences and Perceptions of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Residents to Training in Nigeria.

How surgical residents fare during their training could enhance job satisfaction and fulfilment post-training. But there is paucity of literature on the experiences of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) trainees during residency training. The aim of this study was to report the expectations, experiences and perceptions of OMS residents towards training in Nigeria. Cross-sectional study of OMS residents in accredited Nigerian training institutions was conducted between September and December, 2017. Study tool was adapted from that used for general surgery residents in the United States. Results were analysed using Microsoft Excel for Windows 10. Sixty-eight of seventy-three questionnaires were returned (response rate was 93%). More respondents were males (86.8%) than females (13.2%). 44.1% of all respondents were aged 35-39years. Senior residents (n=31, 45.6%) were more than those in the junior cadre. The most important reason for choosing OMS residency training was for knowledge (72.1%) followed by the prospect of better pay (8.8%). Most residents believed their opinions were important (66.7%) and looked forward to their daily work (72.1%) but were dissatisfied with the didactic teaching aspect by consultants (57.3%) and felt the hours and stress of working were straining their family life, respectively (91.0% and 76.7%). Most OMS residents were happy and expected to gain knowledge from the training. However, some were dissatisfied with the training duration and level of didactic teaching by consultants and the impact of residency training on family life. There is need to improve didactic teaching and ensure adequate work/family balance for better OMS residency training in Nigeria.

Investigating the Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Oral & Maxillofacial (OMS) Residents in the United States

PurposeThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory disorder 2) has emerged as the primary global health concern of 2020. Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) residents, like other health care personnel, have been on the front line providing care to SARS-CoV-2-negative and SARS-CoV-2-positive patients across the United States. As surgeons of the head and neck, OMS residents may be at an increased risk of infection; however, little is known about the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among OMS residents across the United States. This research study sought to elucidate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among OMS residents and explore the risk factors that are associated with infection.MethodsInstitutional review board approval for the study was obtained via NYU School of Medicine. The study was performed via the dissemination of a secure electronic survey to OMS residents in accredited training programs across the United States. The survey elicited information regarding residency training, demographic characteristics, health characteristics, and SARS-CoV-2 testing. Survey data were collected between August 20, 2020, and September 21, 2020, and the data were subsequently exported to SAS 9.4 for statistical analysis. Prevalence with 95% confidence intervals was calculated with the exact binomial technique. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test, and continuous variables were compared with the Mann Whitney U test.ResultsOne hundred twenty-nine survey respondents initiated the survey, and 84 respondents completed the survey. Respondents who failed to complete the survey were excluded from the study. Of the 84 respondents who completed the survey, 47 respondents indicated that they had received a SARS-CoV-2 PCR (polymerase chain reaction), antigen, or serology test. Five of the 47 respondents reported a positive result, which revealed a prevalence of 10.64 (95% confidence interval, 3.55-23.1). The presence of symptoms was significantly associated with a report of a positive test result. Respondents who reported symptoms were 20 times more likely to report a positive test result than respondents who reported no symptoms (P = .008).ConclusionIn conclusion, this study found that the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among OMS residents across the United States is approximately 10.64% and the presence of symptoms is associated with a positive test result. Even though the United States has been managing the COVID-19 pandemic for close to 1 year, it is important that OMS residents continue to adhere to infection control measures and self-monitor for the presence of symptoms consistent with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Feedback in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Education

<h3>Purpose</h3> The practice of giving feedback has never been evaluated in OMS (oral and maxillofacial surgery) education. The aim of this study was to characterize variations in feedback-giving strategies utilized in resident education and compare this to their preferred ways of receiving feedback. As a secondary aim, we wish to gauge residents' satisfaction with the feedback they receive. As a tertiary aim, we wish to compare residents' and attendings' perception of said feedback. <h3>Methods</h3> We sent surveys to all OMS residency program directors nationwide for completion by their residents and faculty (Figures 1, 2). All responses were recorded via a 5-point Likert scale. Responses were grouped into categories of <i>agreee</i> + <i>strongly agree, neutral</i>, and <i>disagree</i> + <i>strongly disagree</i> for statements of preference or agreement and <i>almost never</i> + <i>seldom, sometimes, most of the time</i> + <i>nearly all of the time</i> for statements of setting and time. Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney <i>U</i> tests were used to compare responses between 2 groups, with <i>P</i> < .05 for statistical significance. <h3>Results</h3> Our results show significant differences between how feedback is given, based on the residents' perspectives, and how they prefer it be given. Most notable, 79% would like feedback to occur during a postoperative debrief immediately after the case; however, only 27% report that this is the usual setting (<i>P</i> < .0001). Additionally, 92.95% prefer verbal, face-to-face feedback, whereas they agree that it occurs this way 59% of the time (<i>P</i> < .0001). In terms of resident satisfaction, only 47% were satisfied with the current feedback practices. The biggest deficiencies appear to be in the quality and specificity of said feedback, with only 43% agreeing that each of these are adequate. Additionally, only 49% felt that the amount was adequate. In regards to faculty vs resident perceptions, significant differences were found in nearly all responses. The groups only agreed on the seldom use of rating tools and the importance of feedback in OMS education, which was nearly unanimous (94% vs 96%). The largest difference was in the use of postoperative debriefing, which faculty reported to occur often 65% of the time, while residents reported only 27% (<i>P</i> < .0001). Ninety-four percent of faculty responded that feedback is most often delivered verbally, face-to-face, while only 59% of residents agreed (<i>P</i> < .0001). Additionally, 76% of faculty believed the quality of their feedback to be adequate, versus only 43% of residents who felt that this was the case (<i>P</i> < .0001). <h3>Conclusion</h3> Our results indicate several issues regarding the current practices of feedback in OMS training. Residents most prefer feedback given verbally, face-to-face, in a postoperative debriefing, while they indicate that this is often not the case. Interestingly, faculty believe that both of these occur significantly more frequently than the residents report. Faculty also believe that the quality of their feedback given is adequate, while residents disagree. Overall, it appears that resident satisfaction with current practices is low, and our study identifies multiple opportunities for improvement.