- Email: [email protected]
Gateway offer lowers standards
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 128, Number 1
(“ . . . main objective has been and continues to be to achieve the highest standards of excellence in clinical orthodontics via certification”; “ . . . vision is to welcome as many educationally qualified orthodontists into the process as possible”). Could it be that the board’s objective and the vision are not bilaterally achievable? Our graduates can do it; we just need to make it valuable enough that they will do it. I do not want this to sound negative. I certainly have cherished my certification and will continue to believe in and support the ABO. Those chosen to be ABO directors have always been of the highest caliber. I know this must be a dilemma for them, and, in the big picture, certification is good, and promoting it is right. The bigger question might be: if this is good and right, and we have the privilege of having dentistry’s best and brightest in our specialty, why won’t most orthodontists “go the distance”? I do not know, but I think that they don’t feel the need. We need to better define the need. Respectfully submitted by a regular old orthodontist still out there in the trenches (and with our great specialty and its wonderful legacy at heart). Dale V. Rhoney Lake Oswego, Ore Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:6-7 0889-5406/$30.00 Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.024
Gateway offer lowers standards I can appreciate the American Board of Orthodontics’ concern that only about a quarter of the members of the American Association of Orthodontists is board-certified. I also believe that most orthodontists desire to practice at the highest standards of excellence, and many actually do. I recently achieved board certification, and the process was invaluable to improving my clinical skills. I would recommend it to all orthodontists. The process was stressful at moments, time consuming, and expensive but still worth it. The most valuable part was Phase III, in which a candidate presents treated cases, and diplomates give their feedback. I do have a concern with the new Gateway Offer (Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, Greco PM, et al. A change in the certification process by the American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:278-281) in which an orthodontist can receive an ABO certificate for 5 years for a fee of $1880 without showing a single case. I realize that the board wants more orthodontists to become certified, but this seems to be lowering the standard instead of raising it and would be contrary to the ABO mission. How will the public distinguish between a diplomate who has completed Phase III and one who has not? It will be interesting to see how many Gateway diplomates complete Phase III and whether this will make a
Readers’ forum 7
difference in the number of orthodontists who become certified after the 5-year period. I believe an orthodontist who wants to practice at the highest standard of excellence doesn’t need a shortcut. Gregory K. Ross Lakeland, Minn Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:7 0889-5406/$30.00 Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.023
Make ABO exam more user-friendly It is interesting to me that, after 75 years of ABO existence, the directors are now so concerned with the percentage of orthodontists who attain certification (Riolo ML, Owens SE, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, Greco PM, et al. A change in the certification process by the American Board of Orthodontics 2005;127:278-81). For 75 years, the numbers have stayed fairly constant. Why would the directors think that, by changing the certification process, those numbers would change? Even if there were a temporary increase by allowing certification without Phase III, the recertification process would drop the numbers back to the same level. Then instead of having board-eligible and board-certified orthodontists, we would have boardcertified (first time) and board-recertified orthodontists. Changing the name does not change the beast. In the long term, I believe the results will be even worse. With the ordeal of recertification required every 10 years, there will likely be an even greater loss of recertified doctors and probably fewer recertifying the first time because of the 10-year limit. Remember, when comparing our board with medicalspecialty boards, there is a big difference. The hospitals and clinics where those doctors practice require board certification to use those facilities. We have our own clinics, so there is no monetary motivation for certification. The present system might not be perfect, and I applaud the board for trying to improve it, but I suggest spending more time making the examination more user-friendly and less time on bureaucratic restructuring. Finally, a closing thought: if board members think that future orthodontists require recertification, let those board members be the first in line to be recertified. It never ceases to amaze me how much legislation comes from those to whom the legislation will not apply. If this is a “home run,” then, in my opinion, the batters are using steroids. J. Courtney Gorman Marion, Ind Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:7 0889-5406/$30.00 Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.021
(“ . . . main objective has been and continues to be to achieve the highest standards of excellence in clinical orthodontics via certification”; “ . . . vision is to welcome as many educationally qualified orthodontists into the process as possible”). Could it be that the board’s objective and the vision are not bilaterally achievable? Our graduates can do it; we just need to make it valuable enough that they will do it. I do not want this to sound negative. I certainly have cherished my certification and will continue to believe in and support the ABO. Those chosen to be ABO directors have always been of the highest caliber. I know this must be a dilemma for them, and, in the big picture, certification is good, and promoting it is right. The bigger question might be: if this is good and right, and we have the privilege of having dentistry’s best and brightest in our specialty, why won’t most orthodontists “go the distance”? I do not know, but I think that they don’t feel the need. We need to better define the need. Respectfully submitted by a regular old orthodontist still out there in the trenches (and with our great specialty and its wonderful legacy at heart). Dale V. Rhoney Lake Oswego, Ore Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:6-7 0889-5406/$30.00 Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.024
Gateway offer lowers standards I can appreciate the American Board of Orthodontics’ concern that only about a quarter of the members of the American Association of Orthodontists is board-certified. I also believe that most orthodontists desire to practice at the highest standards of excellence, and many actually do. I recently achieved board certification, and the process was invaluable to improving my clinical skills. I would recommend it to all orthodontists. The process was stressful at moments, time consuming, and expensive but still worth it. The most valuable part was Phase III, in which a candidate presents treated cases, and diplomates give their feedback. I do have a concern with the new Gateway Offer (Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, Greco PM, et al. A change in the certification process by the American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:278-281) in which an orthodontist can receive an ABO certificate for 5 years for a fee of $1880 without showing a single case. I realize that the board wants more orthodontists to become certified, but this seems to be lowering the standard instead of raising it and would be contrary to the ABO mission. How will the public distinguish between a diplomate who has completed Phase III and one who has not? It will be interesting to see how many Gateway diplomates complete Phase III and whether this will make a
Readers’ forum 7
difference in the number of orthodontists who become certified after the 5-year period. I believe an orthodontist who wants to practice at the highest standard of excellence doesn’t need a shortcut. Gregory K. Ross Lakeland, Minn Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:7 0889-5406/$30.00 Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.023
Make ABO exam more user-friendly It is interesting to me that, after 75 years of ABO existence, the directors are now so concerned with the percentage of orthodontists who attain certification (Riolo ML, Owens SE, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, Greco PM, et al. A change in the certification process by the American Board of Orthodontics 2005;127:278-81). For 75 years, the numbers have stayed fairly constant. Why would the directors think that, by changing the certification process, those numbers would change? Even if there were a temporary increase by allowing certification without Phase III, the recertification process would drop the numbers back to the same level. Then instead of having board-eligible and board-certified orthodontists, we would have boardcertified (first time) and board-recertified orthodontists. Changing the name does not change the beast. In the long term, I believe the results will be even worse. With the ordeal of recertification required every 10 years, there will likely be an even greater loss of recertified doctors and probably fewer recertifying the first time because of the 10-year limit. Remember, when comparing our board with medicalspecialty boards, there is a big difference. The hospitals and clinics where those doctors practice require board certification to use those facilities. We have our own clinics, so there is no monetary motivation for certification. The present system might not be perfect, and I applaud the board for trying to improve it, but I suggest spending more time making the examination more user-friendly and less time on bureaucratic restructuring. Finally, a closing thought: if board members think that future orthodontists require recertification, let those board members be the first in line to be recertified. It never ceases to amaze me how much legislation comes from those to whom the legislation will not apply. If this is a “home run,” then, in my opinion, the batters are using steroids. J. Courtney Gorman Marion, Ind Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:7 0889-5406/$30.00 Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.021