- Email: [email protected]
Discussion of report
Discussion
of report
Following the reading of the Section report by Douglas C. Wendt, Session Chairperson Brien R. Lang asked for a motion “to accept the report for discussion with the recording of additional comments from the Plenum.” Such a motion was made by Glen P. McGivney and seconded by Roy Yanase. Chm. Lang: Are there any comments regarding the INTRODUCTION? [No response] We will proceed with the discussion of the report of Section 1 by posing each question to the Plenum for response. Are there any comments on Question l? WHAT MUST THE PROSTHODONTIC COMMUNITY DO TO ACHIEVE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN AFFECTING DENTAL PROFESSIONAL POLICIES? William A Kuebker: It was the the consensus of the Section Contributors that what was written and the editing (in Future Policies) broadly covered the information very well. However, we felt there were more details discussed that may be helpful. Therefore, it was the consensus of that group that we enter this information into the record. 1. It is strongly recommended that the FPO leadership in cooperation with its member organizations clearly define the mission of the specialty and the discipline in meeting the needs of prosthodontics as it enters the 21st Century. It is also recommended that the report of this Symposium and other specific concerns of member organizations, as well as other pertinent internal and external environmental data, be carefully considered in this process. 2. It is suggested that an expert in strategic planning be used to help plan, coordinate, and act as a facilitator in this process. 3. It is suggested that resultant goals and objectives be prioritized, based on how critical the need and in consideration of fiscal constraints. Methods of financing FPO activities in addition to member dues should be investigated. 4. It is suggested that goals be developed to encompass a 5-year period, at which time, they can be revised, continued or deleted if they have not been achieved. This process should include an annual asessment of how well each objective is achieved. 5. It is suggested that goals and objectives be assigned to individuals, committees, councils, or member organizations who would be responsible ‘for their achievement. Chm. Lang: Any further comments? Leonard A. Mueninghoff: I realize that the FPO is sponsoring this meeting and that all of the recommendations go back to the FPO. Many of the member organizations in the FPO are dominated by general practitioners rather than prosthodontists. Chm. Lang: To deal with your concerns, I am going to call on Bob Wesley as one of the most recent FPO officers to address the issue. Robert C. Wesley: I will not be able to give exact figures, but I would say that the FPO House of Delegates is probably dominated by specialists. However, I would object to the word dominated. I do not think that the FPO has been dominated by anything over the past few years, 270
with the exception that we have been dominated by our lack of accomplishment because we were dealing with internal matters rather than focusing on prosthodontics as a whole. I think that this meeting is probably, or should be, the thing that will make the FPO function in the role in which it was begun. I think that we can take the suggestions coming from this Symposium and go forward to the delegates, the committees, and the officers. There has been no attempt by the people who are not specialists to dominate or to do anything within the FPO that would harm the speciality. As a generalist, I practice general dentistry, and I have taught prosthodontics, in the Department of Prosthodontics at the University of Kentucky, for 22 years. I think that people have had a misconception, maybe, about what we are doing in the FPO. We are there because we believe prosthodontics should be promoted. Because we believe that the teaching programs, both undergraduate and graduate, should be the best that we can make them. I am there for that reason, no other reason. I did not go there, 10 to 15 years ago, with the thought that someday I would become president of the FPO. I am honored that I did, and I thank those people who gave me that honor, but that was not the reason I went. I went because of my interest in prosthodontics and in promoting prosthodontics. So, I think I would like to ask everyone to put aside their fears of “domination” by any group within the FPO. David W. Eggleston: It should be noted that a written policy exists in the FPO that matters pertaining to the specialty of prosthodontics are referred to the American College of Prosthodontists to be handled within the scope of the FPO. We are assuming that as these documents go back to the FPO for deliberation, that the matters that pertain to the specialty of prosthodontics will be sent to the American College who will work in conjunction with the FPO towards their resolution. Chm. Lang: The recommendations from this report will go to the Executive Director and the officers of the Federation of Prosthodontic Organizations. That body will then deal with the distribution of the Future Policies and Recommendations as detailed in their Bylaws and Constitutions. Frank V. Celenza: I would like to add to what Dr. Wesley gave us. The FPO is also there to ensure that the discipline is adequately represented and not just the specialty. Chm. Lang: Can we now move to Question 2? IS THE ADA ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF PROSTHODONTICS CURRENT? I. Kenneth Adisman: It was expressed by some Section members that the definition of prosthodontics should include our involvement in orofacial and cranial rehabilitation. Therefore, it makes invalid the term prosthodontics if you examine the present definition. Chm. Lang: Any further comments? Would you now please address Question 3? WHY IS THE TERM “PROSTHODONTICS” BEING DELETED FROM ADA
SEPTEMBER
lBS0
VOLUME
64
NUMBER
S
CLINICAL
PRACTICE:
PROFESSIONAL
AFFAIRS
UNDERGRADUATE DENTAL CURRICULA AND EDUCATION STANDARDS/GUIDELINES? Dale E. Smith: In item e, under 1, “At a minimum graduatesmust be competent.” In listing all the stepsthat are to be provided for removable partial dentures and complete dentures, it could be interpreted that nothing is in there about fabrication. William A. Welker: I take it that this is a direct quote from Section 5.3.8 of the ADA document? There are several organizationsthat are in the processof reviewing those acceditation standards and making recommendationsfor changes.One group has already requestedthe insertion of the word fabrication. I would like to have the Federation of Prosthodontic Organizations endorsethe recommendations, made by member organizations of the FPO, for changesin the accreditation standards. Chm. Lang: I think your recommendationis reflected in statements on Future Policy for this question. Leonard A. Mueninghoff: I have a personalproblem with the term prescription versus work authorization. Douglas C. Wendt: The definition of a prescription is a record sent from one licensedprofessionalto another licensedprofessionalto be dispenseddirectly to the public. That is not what we mean. Many states have work authorization lawsthat require you to write a work authorization, not a prescription. Chm. Lang: Can we move now to Question 4? THE DENTAL SPECIALTY FORUM HAS BEEN ORGANIZED WITHIN THE ADA TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SPECIALISTS TO PRESENT IDEAS, CRITICISMS AND CONCERNS TO NATIONAL ORGANIZED DENTISTRY. HOW EFFECTIVE IS OR CAN IT BE? [No response] Can we move now to Question 5? WHAT EFFECT WILL THE DENTAL SPECIALTY FORUM HAVE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTERSPECIALTY GROUP? HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE INTERSPECIALTY GROUP AND HOW COULD ITS EFFECTIVENESS BE IMPROVED? [No response] Chm. Lang: Canwe go now to Question 6?REFERRAL PATTERNS BETWEEN PROSTHODONTIC SPECIALISTS AND GENERAL PRACTITIONERS AND OTHER DENTAL AND MEDICAL SPECIALISTS LACK CONSISTENCY. WHAT FACTORS ARE OPERATIVE? PROPOSE A PROTOCOL FOR IMPROVED WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WHICH WILL ENHANCE PATIENT CARE. Alex Koper: On Queston 6, after the last sentenceat the end of the paragraph on Beliefs and before Future Policy, I would like to add one sentence,“Specialists referrals result in support for, and the sharing of, responsibility for treatment of the patient.” Ronald L. Ettinger: I have a philosophical concern. If I am a general dentist doing an endodontic procedure and I cannot find the root canal, I know I need an endodontist. If I am caring for a patient and doing either fixed or
THE
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
removableprosthodontics, when do I need a specialist?In the Future Policy statements, is the Section recommending that the ADA Council on Dental Education be provided with the appropriate standards related to referral procedures? Chm. Lang: Anyone care to answer? Cosmo V. DeSteno: There are two aspectsto this Future Policy statement. One is the guidelines used by the generalpractitioner to refer a patient. The other aspect is one of marketing or making a general practitioner feel comfortable referring a patient to the specialist. This question will be discussedby the Marketing Section. Douglas C. Wendt: I believe that, a83 Cosmo(DeSteno) has said, we need guidelines in this area and you have brought up an important point. If you have been trained and you are comfortable doing a procedure, you should do it. If you are not comfortable, or if you have not been trained to do that procedure, you should refer the patient to the proper specialist. The most important thing is the health and welfare of that patient. Robert J. Flinton: In our Section, :Dr. Myron Nevins, President of the American Academy of Periodontology, discusseda videotape used by periodontists to communicate through an instructional basiswith general dentists. The tape discussesthose areasthey believe clearly belong to the specialistsin diagnosisand treat.ment planning, so that the generalist could recognizethose areasthat clearly need referral to the specialists.I believe that such an approach in prosthodontics isexactly what we arereferring to in Future Policies. Chm. Lang: Any other comments?~NOresponse]Are you ready to look at Question 7? WHY IS THE AMERICAN BOARD OF PROSTHODONTICS EXAMINATION AND RECOGNITION NOT ZJSED FOR SPECIALTY STATE LICENSE? Robert J. Flinton: Under beliefs, the secondsentence, “three options for licensing were discussed.”I am fearful that it may be implied or interpreted from that statement that the Section supports all of these mechanismsfor licensure.I particularly take exception to Option “a” where we say, “licensure upon completion of an accredited advanced educational program in prosthodontics without examination.” I do not think anyone in our Section believes that this isa mechanismfor licensure.Webelieve that some states may want to award licensure that way. Chm. Lang: So recorded. Any comments. Dorsey J. Moore: In direct testimony before our state legislaturethis year a group recommendedexactly what is stated in “a,” and it wassoundly defeated by a vote of about 96 to 2. Chm. Lang: Any futher comments?Are you ready to respond to Question 8? PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE DENTAL LABORATORY INDUSTRY CAN BE IMPROVED. SINCE THE PROSTHODONTIC COMMUNITY IS A PRIMARY USER OF THESE SERVICES, IS A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN IM271
PROVING RAPPORT AND LIAISON WITH THE INDUSTRY INDICATED FOR PROSTHODONTICS? Any comments on the “yes” answer to question 8a? [No response] We move to Question 8b. WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS CAN PROSTHODONTICS MAKE TO THE EDUCATIONAL ENHANCEMENT OF THE INDUSTRY? Kenneth D. Rudd: In a recent issue of the National Association of Dental Laboratories publication, “Trends and Techniques,” they indicated their preference to use the title dental technician rather then dental laboratory technician; and when they are certified, they are certified as dental technicians, not dental laboratory technicians. I would submit that we should go through this document and change every ,reference to dental laboratory technician to dental technician. I would like to add another Fact for consideration. The American Prosthodontic Society invites dental technicians to attend its annual meeting in Chicago. This has been the policy for the past 5 years. They have had several technicians give table clinics at the meeting. This year they have a technician, Palmer Meyer, who will give a paper at the American Prosthodontic Society meeting. Chm. Lang: Any further comments on this question? Palmer Meyer: Just a point of clarification for Dr. Rudd so that you understand full circle what we are talking about. We have a national board for certification of dental technicians. About 5 years ago, we developed the national board for certified laboratories. That is the main reason that we prefer that the technicians be called certified dental technicians and the laboratories be called certified dental laboratories. Gerald N. Graser: Did the Section consider the need to encourage schools of dentistry to develop continuing education programs in advanced prosthodontic technology in light of the closing of several laboratory schools? Douglas C. Wendt: It was discussed at some length. We do not know the answer to the problem. How we solve the dental laboratory school closing, I do not know. I know there is a shortage that is affecting the industry and ultimately affects the services we require from this industry. Dorsey J. Moore: From a university standpoint, we have a major problem in that schools will not start a program that does not lead to a degree. Chm. Lang: Any further comments on Question 8b? Michael E. Razzoog: When I joined the Michigan Dental Association committee on laboratory relations, I was told that the Michigan Dental Association and the American Dental Association strongly oppposed licensure of dental technicians. But, the reasons were never explained to me. Can someone in the audience from the American Dental Association explain that position? Chm. Lang: Any comments? Palmer Meyer: That was a decision made by the American Dental Association, House of Delegates, maybe
272
7 or 8 years ago. Then, recently, that decision was rescinded because this is a States rights issue and that is where it lies today. I think there has been a lot of fear that, if technicians or laboratories are licensed, that is the first step toward denturism and our house has taken a stand diametrically opposed to the legalization of denturism throughout the country. Chm. Lang: Thank you. Any other comments on 8b? William A. Welker: I wholeheartedly support the policy to include improvement of communications skills for dental graduates with laboratory technicians. I am involved in undergraduate education and revision of the accreditation standards. One of the problems that members of that committee have found with dentists/dental laboratory communications is not the teaching of dental students how to communicate, but the fact that they do not know very much about dental laboratory technology, and it isn’t required in the standards. Chm. Lang: Any comments on 8c? WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS WILL COME FROM THE DENTAL LABORATORY INDUSTRY? Jack Lemmons: With the fabrication of dental implant superstructures by the laboratory, there is an expanding and increasing need for laboratory input because of different requirements and unique circumstances. In these deliberations, has such been brought into consideration? Chm. Lang: Anyone care to comment on Jack’s (Lemmow) statement? [No response]I think the fact, Jack, that you have madethe statement will assureits inclusion in the record. Chm. Lang: Are there any comments on question 9? PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH DENTAL MANUFACTURERS WILL EXPAND CONSIDERABLY IN THE FUTURE. WHAT SHOULD BE THE DIRECTION AND/OR CONTROLS FOR THIS EXPANSION? James L. Lord: Barry Sands,from the FDA, askedthat practitioners report problemswith medical devicesto the FDA via the product reporting program. In addition, he askedthat behind the toll free number, 800-638-6275,that you put in parenthesis,Product Reporting Program. Chm. Lang: Any further comments?[No response]Can we turn our attention now to Question 10. PROSTHODONTICS IS ACHIEVING INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION AS A SPECIAL AREA OF DENTAL PRACTICE. DOES THE U.S. COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROSTHODONTIC PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS INTERNATIONALLY? Are there any statements or commentsregarding the first part of question 10or rather lOa? [No response]Would you pleaseshift your attention to lob. Ross L. Taylor: I should like to comment about Fulbright Scholars. There are also scholarshipsfor dentists from abroad to cometo the North American continent.
SEPTEMBER
lBS0
VOLUME
64
NUMBER
3
CLINICAL
PRACTICE:
PROFESSIONAL
AFFAIRS
Ray Yanase: I would also like to state that the Academy of Dentistry International has established international education as one of its primary goals. Chm. Lang: Thank you. Any other comments? [No response] None appearing, I think we shall move to Question lla. IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINED PROSTHODONTISTS IN AMERICA (U.S.) ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC? Leonard A. MueninghoE The American Association of Dental Schools has developed a national placement service for various residency programs in dentistry. It is called the PASS program. The information that I recently received was that prosthodontics was being excluded for lack of desire to participate in the program. I believe periodontics is going to be involved at a later date. We may have someone here that knows more about this program. Steven A. Aquilino: This is a program for placement
THE
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
of residents into programs, not for placement of prosthodontists coming out of programs. So, it is an application service for training programs. It is a little different than the intent of this Section. Chm. Lang: Thank you for your comments. Let’s move then to llb. IS THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIALTY PRACTICE A BARRIER? [No response ] Chm. Lang: Let’s move then to Question 12. MANY CONCERNS OF SPECIALISTS ARE ADDRESSED AT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND/OR ROADBLOCKS TO INTERSPECIALTY GROUPS AT THE STATE LEVEL? Any comments on Question 12? [No response] None appearing, I will call to a ciose the report and discussion for Section 1.
273
of report
Following the reading of the Section report by Douglas C. Wendt, Session Chairperson Brien R. Lang asked for a motion “to accept the report for discussion with the recording of additional comments from the Plenum.” Such a motion was made by Glen P. McGivney and seconded by Roy Yanase. Chm. Lang: Are there any comments regarding the INTRODUCTION? [No response] We will proceed with the discussion of the report of Section 1 by posing each question to the Plenum for response. Are there any comments on Question l? WHAT MUST THE PROSTHODONTIC COMMUNITY DO TO ACHIEVE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN AFFECTING DENTAL PROFESSIONAL POLICIES? William A Kuebker: It was the the consensus of the Section Contributors that what was written and the editing (in Future Policies) broadly covered the information very well. However, we felt there were more details discussed that may be helpful. Therefore, it was the consensus of that group that we enter this information into the record. 1. It is strongly recommended that the FPO leadership in cooperation with its member organizations clearly define the mission of the specialty and the discipline in meeting the needs of prosthodontics as it enters the 21st Century. It is also recommended that the report of this Symposium and other specific concerns of member organizations, as well as other pertinent internal and external environmental data, be carefully considered in this process. 2. It is suggested that an expert in strategic planning be used to help plan, coordinate, and act as a facilitator in this process. 3. It is suggested that resultant goals and objectives be prioritized, based on how critical the need and in consideration of fiscal constraints. Methods of financing FPO activities in addition to member dues should be investigated. 4. It is suggested that goals be developed to encompass a 5-year period, at which time, they can be revised, continued or deleted if they have not been achieved. This process should include an annual asessment of how well each objective is achieved. 5. It is suggested that goals and objectives be assigned to individuals, committees, councils, or member organizations who would be responsible ‘for their achievement. Chm. Lang: Any further comments? Leonard A. Mueninghoff: I realize that the FPO is sponsoring this meeting and that all of the recommendations go back to the FPO. Many of the member organizations in the FPO are dominated by general practitioners rather than prosthodontists. Chm. Lang: To deal with your concerns, I am going to call on Bob Wesley as one of the most recent FPO officers to address the issue. Robert C. Wesley: I will not be able to give exact figures, but I would say that the FPO House of Delegates is probably dominated by specialists. However, I would object to the word dominated. I do not think that the FPO has been dominated by anything over the past few years, 270
with the exception that we have been dominated by our lack of accomplishment because we were dealing with internal matters rather than focusing on prosthodontics as a whole. I think that this meeting is probably, or should be, the thing that will make the FPO function in the role in which it was begun. I think that we can take the suggestions coming from this Symposium and go forward to the delegates, the committees, and the officers. There has been no attempt by the people who are not specialists to dominate or to do anything within the FPO that would harm the speciality. As a generalist, I practice general dentistry, and I have taught prosthodontics, in the Department of Prosthodontics at the University of Kentucky, for 22 years. I think that people have had a misconception, maybe, about what we are doing in the FPO. We are there because we believe prosthodontics should be promoted. Because we believe that the teaching programs, both undergraduate and graduate, should be the best that we can make them. I am there for that reason, no other reason. I did not go there, 10 to 15 years ago, with the thought that someday I would become president of the FPO. I am honored that I did, and I thank those people who gave me that honor, but that was not the reason I went. I went because of my interest in prosthodontics and in promoting prosthodontics. So, I think I would like to ask everyone to put aside their fears of “domination” by any group within the FPO. David W. Eggleston: It should be noted that a written policy exists in the FPO that matters pertaining to the specialty of prosthodontics are referred to the American College of Prosthodontists to be handled within the scope of the FPO. We are assuming that as these documents go back to the FPO for deliberation, that the matters that pertain to the specialty of prosthodontics will be sent to the American College who will work in conjunction with the FPO towards their resolution. Chm. Lang: The recommendations from this report will go to the Executive Director and the officers of the Federation of Prosthodontic Organizations. That body will then deal with the distribution of the Future Policies and Recommendations as detailed in their Bylaws and Constitutions. Frank V. Celenza: I would like to add to what Dr. Wesley gave us. The FPO is also there to ensure that the discipline is adequately represented and not just the specialty. Chm. Lang: Can we now move to Question 2? IS THE ADA ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF PROSTHODONTICS CURRENT? I. Kenneth Adisman: It was expressed by some Section members that the definition of prosthodontics should include our involvement in orofacial and cranial rehabilitation. Therefore, it makes invalid the term prosthodontics if you examine the present definition. Chm. Lang: Any further comments? Would you now please address Question 3? WHY IS THE TERM “PROSTHODONTICS” BEING DELETED FROM ADA
SEPTEMBER
lBS0
VOLUME
64
NUMBER
S
CLINICAL
PRACTICE:
PROFESSIONAL
AFFAIRS
UNDERGRADUATE DENTAL CURRICULA AND EDUCATION STANDARDS/GUIDELINES? Dale E. Smith: In item e, under 1, “At a minimum graduatesmust be competent.” In listing all the stepsthat are to be provided for removable partial dentures and complete dentures, it could be interpreted that nothing is in there about fabrication. William A. Welker: I take it that this is a direct quote from Section 5.3.8 of the ADA document? There are several organizationsthat are in the processof reviewing those acceditation standards and making recommendationsfor changes.One group has already requestedthe insertion of the word fabrication. I would like to have the Federation of Prosthodontic Organizations endorsethe recommendations, made by member organizations of the FPO, for changesin the accreditation standards. Chm. Lang: I think your recommendationis reflected in statements on Future Policy for this question. Leonard A. Mueninghoff: I have a personalproblem with the term prescription versus work authorization. Douglas C. Wendt: The definition of a prescription is a record sent from one licensedprofessionalto another licensedprofessionalto be dispenseddirectly to the public. That is not what we mean. Many states have work authorization lawsthat require you to write a work authorization, not a prescription. Chm. Lang: Can we move now to Question 4? THE DENTAL SPECIALTY FORUM HAS BEEN ORGANIZED WITHIN THE ADA TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SPECIALISTS TO PRESENT IDEAS, CRITICISMS AND CONCERNS TO NATIONAL ORGANIZED DENTISTRY. HOW EFFECTIVE IS OR CAN IT BE? [No response] Can we move now to Question 5? WHAT EFFECT WILL THE DENTAL SPECIALTY FORUM HAVE ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTERSPECIALTY GROUP? HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE INTERSPECIALTY GROUP AND HOW COULD ITS EFFECTIVENESS BE IMPROVED? [No response] Chm. Lang: Canwe go now to Question 6?REFERRAL PATTERNS BETWEEN PROSTHODONTIC SPECIALISTS AND GENERAL PRACTITIONERS AND OTHER DENTAL AND MEDICAL SPECIALISTS LACK CONSISTENCY. WHAT FACTORS ARE OPERATIVE? PROPOSE A PROTOCOL FOR IMPROVED WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WHICH WILL ENHANCE PATIENT CARE. Alex Koper: On Queston 6, after the last sentenceat the end of the paragraph on Beliefs and before Future Policy, I would like to add one sentence,“Specialists referrals result in support for, and the sharing of, responsibility for treatment of the patient.” Ronald L. Ettinger: I have a philosophical concern. If I am a general dentist doing an endodontic procedure and I cannot find the root canal, I know I need an endodontist. If I am caring for a patient and doing either fixed or
THE
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
removableprosthodontics, when do I need a specialist?In the Future Policy statements, is the Section recommending that the ADA Council on Dental Education be provided with the appropriate standards related to referral procedures? Chm. Lang: Anyone care to answer? Cosmo V. DeSteno: There are two aspectsto this Future Policy statement. One is the guidelines used by the generalpractitioner to refer a patient. The other aspect is one of marketing or making a general practitioner feel comfortable referring a patient to the specialist. This question will be discussedby the Marketing Section. Douglas C. Wendt: I believe that, a83 Cosmo(DeSteno) has said, we need guidelines in this area and you have brought up an important point. If you have been trained and you are comfortable doing a procedure, you should do it. If you are not comfortable, or if you have not been trained to do that procedure, you should refer the patient to the proper specialist. The most important thing is the health and welfare of that patient. Robert J. Flinton: In our Section, :Dr. Myron Nevins, President of the American Academy of Periodontology, discusseda videotape used by periodontists to communicate through an instructional basiswith general dentists. The tape discussesthose areasthey believe clearly belong to the specialistsin diagnosisand treat.ment planning, so that the generalist could recognizethose areasthat clearly need referral to the specialists.I believe that such an approach in prosthodontics isexactly what we arereferring to in Future Policies. Chm. Lang: Any other comments?~NOresponse]Are you ready to look at Question 7? WHY IS THE AMERICAN BOARD OF PROSTHODONTICS EXAMINATION AND RECOGNITION NOT ZJSED FOR SPECIALTY STATE LICENSE? Robert J. Flinton: Under beliefs, the secondsentence, “three options for licensing were discussed.”I am fearful that it may be implied or interpreted from that statement that the Section supports all of these mechanismsfor licensure.I particularly take exception to Option “a” where we say, “licensure upon completion of an accredited advanced educational program in prosthodontics without examination.” I do not think anyone in our Section believes that this isa mechanismfor licensure.Webelieve that some states may want to award licensure that way. Chm. Lang: So recorded. Any comments. Dorsey J. Moore: In direct testimony before our state legislaturethis year a group recommendedexactly what is stated in “a,” and it wassoundly defeated by a vote of about 96 to 2. Chm. Lang: Any futher comments?Are you ready to respond to Question 8? PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE DENTAL LABORATORY INDUSTRY CAN BE IMPROVED. SINCE THE PROSTHODONTIC COMMUNITY IS A PRIMARY USER OF THESE SERVICES, IS A MORE ACTIVE ROLE IN IM271
PROVING RAPPORT AND LIAISON WITH THE INDUSTRY INDICATED FOR PROSTHODONTICS? Any comments on the “yes” answer to question 8a? [No response] We move to Question 8b. WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS CAN PROSTHODONTICS MAKE TO THE EDUCATIONAL ENHANCEMENT OF THE INDUSTRY? Kenneth D. Rudd: In a recent issue of the National Association of Dental Laboratories publication, “Trends and Techniques,” they indicated their preference to use the title dental technician rather then dental laboratory technician; and when they are certified, they are certified as dental technicians, not dental laboratory technicians. I would submit that we should go through this document and change every ,reference to dental laboratory technician to dental technician. I would like to add another Fact for consideration. The American Prosthodontic Society invites dental technicians to attend its annual meeting in Chicago. This has been the policy for the past 5 years. They have had several technicians give table clinics at the meeting. This year they have a technician, Palmer Meyer, who will give a paper at the American Prosthodontic Society meeting. Chm. Lang: Any further comments on this question? Palmer Meyer: Just a point of clarification for Dr. Rudd so that you understand full circle what we are talking about. We have a national board for certification of dental technicians. About 5 years ago, we developed the national board for certified laboratories. That is the main reason that we prefer that the technicians be called certified dental technicians and the laboratories be called certified dental laboratories. Gerald N. Graser: Did the Section consider the need to encourage schools of dentistry to develop continuing education programs in advanced prosthodontic technology in light of the closing of several laboratory schools? Douglas C. Wendt: It was discussed at some length. We do not know the answer to the problem. How we solve the dental laboratory school closing, I do not know. I know there is a shortage that is affecting the industry and ultimately affects the services we require from this industry. Dorsey J. Moore: From a university standpoint, we have a major problem in that schools will not start a program that does not lead to a degree. Chm. Lang: Any further comments on Question 8b? Michael E. Razzoog: When I joined the Michigan Dental Association committee on laboratory relations, I was told that the Michigan Dental Association and the American Dental Association strongly oppposed licensure of dental technicians. But, the reasons were never explained to me. Can someone in the audience from the American Dental Association explain that position? Chm. Lang: Any comments? Palmer Meyer: That was a decision made by the American Dental Association, House of Delegates, maybe
272
7 or 8 years ago. Then, recently, that decision was rescinded because this is a States rights issue and that is where it lies today. I think there has been a lot of fear that, if technicians or laboratories are licensed, that is the first step toward denturism and our house has taken a stand diametrically opposed to the legalization of denturism throughout the country. Chm. Lang: Thank you. Any other comments on 8b? William A. Welker: I wholeheartedly support the policy to include improvement of communications skills for dental graduates with laboratory technicians. I am involved in undergraduate education and revision of the accreditation standards. One of the problems that members of that committee have found with dentists/dental laboratory communications is not the teaching of dental students how to communicate, but the fact that they do not know very much about dental laboratory technology, and it isn’t required in the standards. Chm. Lang: Any comments on 8c? WHAT CONTRIBUTIONS WILL COME FROM THE DENTAL LABORATORY INDUSTRY? Jack Lemmons: With the fabrication of dental implant superstructures by the laboratory, there is an expanding and increasing need for laboratory input because of different requirements and unique circumstances. In these deliberations, has such been brought into consideration? Chm. Lang: Anyone care to comment on Jack’s (Lemmow) statement? [No response]I think the fact, Jack, that you have madethe statement will assureits inclusion in the record. Chm. Lang: Are there any comments on question 9? PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH DENTAL MANUFACTURERS WILL EXPAND CONSIDERABLY IN THE FUTURE. WHAT SHOULD BE THE DIRECTION AND/OR CONTROLS FOR THIS EXPANSION? James L. Lord: Barry Sands,from the FDA, askedthat practitioners report problemswith medical devicesto the FDA via the product reporting program. In addition, he askedthat behind the toll free number, 800-638-6275,that you put in parenthesis,Product Reporting Program. Chm. Lang: Any further comments?[No response]Can we turn our attention now to Question 10. PROSTHODONTICS IS ACHIEVING INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION AS A SPECIAL AREA OF DENTAL PRACTICE. DOES THE U.S. COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTE TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROSTHODONTIC PROFESSIONAL RELATIONS INTERNATIONALLY? Are there any statements or commentsregarding the first part of question 10or rather lOa? [No response]Would you pleaseshift your attention to lob. Ross L. Taylor: I should like to comment about Fulbright Scholars. There are also scholarshipsfor dentists from abroad to cometo the North American continent.
SEPTEMBER
lBS0
VOLUME
64
NUMBER
3
CLINICAL
PRACTICE:
PROFESSIONAL
AFFAIRS
Ray Yanase: I would also like to state that the Academy of Dentistry International has established international education as one of its primary goals. Chm. Lang: Thank you. Any other comments? [No response] None appearing, I think we shall move to Question lla. IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINED PROSTHODONTISTS IN AMERICA (U.S.) ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC? Leonard A. MueninghoE The American Association of Dental Schools has developed a national placement service for various residency programs in dentistry. It is called the PASS program. The information that I recently received was that prosthodontics was being excluded for lack of desire to participate in the program. I believe periodontics is going to be involved at a later date. We may have someone here that knows more about this program. Steven A. Aquilino: This is a program for placement
THE
JOURNAL
OF PROSTHETIC
DENTISTRY
of residents into programs, not for placement of prosthodontists coming out of programs. So, it is an application service for training programs. It is a little different than the intent of this Section. Chm. Lang: Thank you for your comments. Let’s move then to llb. IS THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SPECIALTY PRACTICE A BARRIER? [No response ] Chm. Lang: Let’s move then to Question 12. MANY CONCERNS OF SPECIALISTS ARE ADDRESSED AT THE STATE LEGISLATIVE LEVEL. WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND/OR ROADBLOCKS TO INTERSPECIALTY GROUPS AT THE STATE LEVEL? Any comments on Question 12? [No response] None appearing, I will call to a ciose the report and discussion for Section 1.
273