U.S. Maxillofacial prosthetics programs: Fellows' and directors' perspectives

James L. Sheets, Daniel J. Pinkston, Judy Chia Chun Yuan, Cortino Sukotjo, Alvin G. Wee

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Maxillofacial prosthetics (MFP) programs in the U.S. select only a limited number of applicants for fellowship positions. The aims of this study were to survey MFP fellows about which factors influenced their choice of programs and to survey MFP directors about what they considered critical factors in the selection process. Surveys were sent to all eight directors and 13 fellows at all eight U.S. MFP programs in June 2015. The directors' questions asked about general information, resident selection process, letters of recommendation, interview process, and decision process. The fellows' questions addressed their demographics, program-related factors, and future goals. The directors' surveys were sent directly to the directors, and the fellows' surveys were sent to the directors for distribution. The survey response rate for the directors was 87.5% (N=7), and that of the fellows was 53.8% (N=7). In selecting fellows for programs, responding directors reported the interview process was most important, followed by letters of recommendation, personal statement, and prosthodontic program grades. Responding fellows reported that location, variety of treatment, patient volume provided, and clinical education were crucial components in their choice of program. This information may be useful to MFP programs and fellows in the continuing development of this specialty.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1335-1342
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of dental education
Volume82
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Advanced dental education
  • Maxillofacial prosthetics
  • Maxillofacial prosthodontics
  • Prosthodontics

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'U.S. Maxillofacial prosthetics programs: Fellows' and directors' perspectives'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this