Private Practice, Wellesley, MA, USA.
J Prosthodont. 2011 Oct;20(7):587-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00741.x. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
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.
本研究由两部分组成。第 1 部分是对美国项目主任的调查，第 2 部分报告了分发给美国牙科学校院长的调查结果。这两项调查都评估了口腔修复学教育趋势的观察结果。项目主任和院长的第一次调查（2005 年）于 2007 年发表。第二次调查于 2009 年进行。2009 年的调查提供了 10 年来美国牙科学校毕业生接受口腔修复学培训的趋势数据。
对 46 名项目主任进行了一项全国性的电子邮件调查，以收集美国和国际牙科学校毕业生接受口腔修复学培训的第 1 年至第 3 年的招生数据、考虑的申请人总数和申请人数的变化趋势，以及美国牙科学校毕业生和国际毕业生申请口腔修复学的趋势。此外，项目主任被要求对可能导致口腔修复学申请人人数变化的 13 个关键因素进行排名。项目主任还被要求提供有关学生经济激励的信息，以及他们的项目是否由州或联邦资助，以及他们的赞助机构是否为牙科学校。
在 46 名项目主任中，有 40 名做出了回应，回应率为 87%。答复者报告说，他们的 66%的学员是美国牙科学校的毕业生。2000 年至 2009 年期间，口腔修复学的申请人人数几乎翻了一番，50%的项目主任报告说，美国培训的申请人有所增加，42.5%的报告没有变化，只有 7.5%的报告有所减少。使用 10 年调查的斯皮尔曼相关性，有一个积极的、具有统计学意义的相关性，即社会对更高水平的培训和认证的需求以及牙科学生对口腔修复学的兴趣导致了申请口腔修复学项目的美国牙科毕业生人数的增加。只有四个项目没有提供学费减免的经济套餐。其余 36 名受访者报告了一些经济套餐。在受访者中，有 23 个是由州政府资助的项目，6 个是由私立大学资助的项目；其余 9 个是由医院或联邦机构资助的。
申请人人数几乎翻了一番，美国接受口腔修复学培训的申请人人数也有所增加，这确保了我们专业的申请人竞争更加激烈。在 2009 年的调查中，项目主任报告说，社会对更高水平的培训和认证的需求、美国牙科学生对口腔修复学的兴趣、种植体、美学和重建牙科的进步、与未来对口腔修复师的需求相关的文献、将口腔修复学作为职业的营销以及口腔修复学培训的美元价值等因素都对增加美国口腔修复学培训的有指导的申请人人数产生了一定的影响。
