Cargando…

Maxillofacial prosthodontics practice profile: a survey of non-United States prosthodontists

BACKGROUND: This study surveyed non-United States maxillofacial prosthodontists (MFP) to determine their practice profile and rationale for pursuing an MFP career. METHODS: Email addresses for the MFP were obtained from the International Society for Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, American Academy of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ariani, Nina, Reintsema, Harry, Ward, Kathleen, Sukotjo, Cortino, Wee, Alvin G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5408459/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28449725
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40463-017-0211-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: This study surveyed non-United States maxillofacial prosthodontists (MFP) to determine their practice profile and rationale for pursuing an MFP career. METHODS: Email addresses for the MFP were obtained from the International Society for Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics, and International Academy for Oral Facial Rehabilitation. Emails with a link to the electronic survey program were sent to each participant. Chi-square and Mann–Whitney-U tests were used to investigate the influence of formal MFP training on professional activities and type of treatments provided. RESULTS: One hundred twelve respondents (response rate 39%) from 33 nationalities returned the survey. The top three reasons for pursuing an MFP career were personal satisfaction, prosthodontics residency exposure, and mentorship. The predominant employment setting was affiliation with a university (77%). There were significant differences between respondents with and without formal MFP training regarding provision of surgical treatments (P = 0.021) and dental oncology (P = 0.017). Most treatments were done together with otolaryngology, oral surgery (68%) and head and neck surgery (61%). Practitioners not affiliated with a university spent significantly more time in clinical practice (P = 0.002), whereas respondents affiliated with universities spent significantly more time in teaching/training (P = 0.008) and funded research (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Personal satisfaction is the most important factor in a decision to choose an MFP career. Most of the MFPs work at a university and within a multidisciplinary setting. There were differences regarding type of treatments provided by respondents with and without formal MFP training.