A survey of program directors: trends, challenges, and mentoring in prosthodontics. Part 1

Abstract

Purpose: 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.

Materials and methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.