Noble James, Hechter Frank J, Karaiskos Nicholas E, Wiltshire William A
Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, Division of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Manitoba, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Dent Educ. 2009 Nov;73(11):1286-92.
The objective of this study was to investigate the satisfaction of orthodontic residents in the United States with their programs and determine the scope of their training. Program chairs/directors of all sixty-five U.S. orthodontic graduate programs were contacted for permission to email their residents. A total of 335 residents from thirty-seven programs were invited to complete an anonymous, online, fifty-seven-item survey in May 2007. Data were categorized, and basic statistics were performed. A total of 136 (40.60 percent) residents completed the survey. Overall, 75.74 percent were satisfied with their program. Residents said they feel they receive appropriate didactic teaching sessions and dedicated academic time (60.29 percent). Most residents (92.70 percent) indicated their program offers training in numerous philosophies, while 80.29 percent said they have sufficient clinically based training and 59.85 percent said they have sufficient research-based training. A total of 57.66 percent said they will not complete more than thirty cases from start to finish and on average treat two orthognathic surgery, thirteen extraction, twenty-four nonextraction, and nine adult patients. Most (92.70 percent) said their program contains care for disabled or underserved patients; most (92.70 percent) said they feel they will be adequately prepared to provide unsupervised orthodontic care after graduation; and 54.41 percent said they think other specialties have a positive view of orthodontics. Only 58.09 percent indicated they have a formal interdisciplinary program for treating patients. We conclude that U.S. orthodontic residents are satisfied with their programs. They receive training in a variety of approaches; however, inadequacies in exposure to interdisciplinary teaching and a limitation of the number of cases started and completed were identified. These observations may be a result of program length due to the preponderance of twenty-four- to thirty-month programs.
本研究的目的是调查美国正畸住院医师对其培训项目的满意度，并确定他们的培训范围。研究联系了美国所有65个正畸研究生项目的项目主任/负责人，请求允许向他们的住院医师发送电子邮件。2007年5月，来自37个项目的335名住院医师被邀请完成一项包含57个项目的匿名在线调查。数据进行了分类，并进行了基本统计。共有136名（40.60%）住院医师完成了调查。总体而言，75.74%的住院医师对他们的项目感到满意。住院医师表示，他们觉得自己接受了适当的理论教学课程并有专门的学术时间（60.29%）。大多数住院医师（92.70%）表示他们的项目提供了多种理念的培训，而80.29%的住院医师表示他们有足够的临床培训，59.85%的住院医师表示他们有足够的研究培训。共有57.66%的住院医师表示他们从头到尾完成的病例不会超过30例，平均治疗2例正颌外科手术患者、13例拔牙患者、24例非拔牙患者和9例成年患者。大多数（92.70%）住院医师表示他们的项目包含对残疾或服务不足患者的治疗；大多数（92.70%）住院医师表示他们觉得毕业后将有足够的准备提供独立的正畸治疗；54.41%的住院医师表示他们认为其他专业对正畸有积极的看法。只有58.09%的住院医师表示他们有治疗患者的正式跨学科项目。我们得出结论，美国正畸住院医师对他们的项目感到满意。他们接受了多种方法的培训；然而，发现跨学科教学的接触不足以及开始和完成病例数量有限。这些观察结果可能是由于24至30个月项目占主导地位导致项目时长的结果。
