- Email: [email protected]
Match program
781
Readers' forum
alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone using cone-beam computed tomography. We hope that we can share the results of this study in the future. Weitao Liu Yanheng Zhou Beijing, China Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:780-1 0889-5406/$36.00 Copyright Ó 2016 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
Match service to potential residents, other programs, and orthodontic education, which in turn should ultimately provide better care to patients. Mayo did join the Match, and time has proven that persons so selected have been superb residents, have embraced Mayo's 3 shields—practice, education, and research—and have gone on to become outstanding specialists. Is there even the hint that nonmatch programs have an unstated fear that their programs in some way do not “match up” with those that are?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.03.006
Arnold J. Hill Emeritus Orthodontic Program Director, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn
REFERENCES 1. Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S. Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148:641–51. 2. Isci D, Turk T, Elekdag-Turk S. Activation-deactivation rapid palatal expansion and reverse headgear in Class III cases. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:706–15. 3. da Luz Vieira G, de Menezes LM, de Lima EM, Rizzatto S. Dentoskeletal effects of maxillary protraction in cleft patients with repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2009;46:391–8. 4. Vaughn GA, Mason B, Moon HB, Turley PK. The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:299–309. 5. Mucedero M, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P. Effects of maxillary protraction with or without expansion on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions in Class III subjects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:777–81. 6. Lee KG, Ryu YK, Park YC, Rudolph DJ. A study of holographic interferometry on the initial reaction of maxillofacial complex during protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:623–32. 7. Hata S, Itoh T, Nakagawa M, Kamogashira K, Ichikawa K, Matsumoto M, et al. Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 91:305–11.
Match program would like to thank the authors of “Match or nonMatch: At the crossroads” in the November issue for a very well-done article on a subject that needed to be addressed (Allareddy V, Srinivasan S, Southard TE. Match or non-Match: at the crossroads. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:748-54). I recall that when the orthodontic match began, our program in the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine was initially considering not to participate in the selection process of the National Matching Service for a number of reasons, some of which were articulated by current nonmatched programs. However, upon reflection, it became clear that any perceived disadvantages to our school were outweighed by the overall benefits of the
I
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:781 0889-5406/$36.00 Copyright Ó 2016 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.03.010
Authors' response
W
e are grateful to Dr Hill for his letter and support of the Postdoctoral Dental Match. Is there an orthodontist who is not thankful for the specialty education that he or she has received? Is there an orthodontist who is not hopeful that our specialty will continue to flourish during the next century? Make no mistake, the future of our specialty rests squarely in the arms of our residency programs. The quality of education our residents receive dictates the long-term success of our specialty and the quality of care provided to our patients. Make no mistake, the success of each orthodontic program rests squarely in the arms of its faculty. Every day, faculties should strive to strengthen their programs—strive to make them the best orthodontic programs in the world. Participating in the orthodontic Match strengthens each program and our specialty by promoting good competition. Why? It is a domino effect. By participating in the Match, orthodontic programs agree to a fixed candidate acceptance date: early December. Candidates have time to interview at programs of interest during the fall and rank their preferred programs. Stronger programs get ranked higher, and weaker programs must work to strengthen the education they provide to be more competitive. If all programs competed by participating in the Match, our specialty would be elevated, as would the quality of care orthodontists provide. Not participating in the Match weakens programs and our specialty by promoting bad competition. Why? Non-Match programs do not have a fixed acceptance date. Instead, they compete by pressuring candidates
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 2016 Vol 149 Issue 6
Readers' forum
alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone using cone-beam computed tomography. We hope that we can share the results of this study in the future. Weitao Liu Yanheng Zhou Beijing, China Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:780-1 0889-5406/$36.00 Copyright Ó 2016 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
Match service to potential residents, other programs, and orthodontic education, which in turn should ultimately provide better care to patients. Mayo did join the Match, and time has proven that persons so selected have been superb residents, have embraced Mayo's 3 shields—practice, education, and research—and have gone on to become outstanding specialists. Is there even the hint that nonmatch programs have an unstated fear that their programs in some way do not “match up” with those that are?
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.03.006
Arnold J. Hill Emeritus Orthodontic Program Director, Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, Rochester, Minn
REFERENCES 1. Liu W, Zhou Y, Wang X, Liu D, Zhou S. Effect of maxillary protraction with alternating rapid palatal expansion and constriction vs expansion alone in maxillary retrusive patients: a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 148:641–51. 2. Isci D, Turk T, Elekdag-Turk S. Activation-deactivation rapid palatal expansion and reverse headgear in Class III cases. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:706–15. 3. da Luz Vieira G, de Menezes LM, de Lima EM, Rizzatto S. Dentoskeletal effects of maxillary protraction in cleft patients with repetitive weekly protocol of alternate rapid maxillary expansions and constrictions. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2009;46:391–8. 4. Vaughn GA, Mason B, Moon HB, Turley PK. The effects of maxillary protraction therapy with or without rapid palatal expansion: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:299–309. 5. Mucedero M, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Cozza P. Effects of maxillary protraction with or without expansion on the sagittal pharyngeal dimensions in Class III subjects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:777–81. 6. Lee KG, Ryu YK, Park YC, Rudolph DJ. A study of holographic interferometry on the initial reaction of maxillofacial complex during protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:623–32. 7. Hata S, Itoh T, Nakagawa M, Kamogashira K, Ichikawa K, Matsumoto M, et al. Biomechanical effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial complex. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 91:305–11.
Match program would like to thank the authors of “Match or nonMatch: At the crossroads” in the November issue for a very well-done article on a subject that needed to be addressed (Allareddy V, Srinivasan S, Southard TE. Match or non-Match: at the crossroads. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148:748-54). I recall that when the orthodontic match began, our program in the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine was initially considering not to participate in the selection process of the National Matching Service for a number of reasons, some of which were articulated by current nonmatched programs. However, upon reflection, it became clear that any perceived disadvantages to our school were outweighed by the overall benefits of the
I
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;149:781 0889-5406/$36.00 Copyright Ó 2016 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.03.010
Authors' response
W
e are grateful to Dr Hill for his letter and support of the Postdoctoral Dental Match. Is there an orthodontist who is not thankful for the specialty education that he or she has received? Is there an orthodontist who is not hopeful that our specialty will continue to flourish during the next century? Make no mistake, the future of our specialty rests squarely in the arms of our residency programs. The quality of education our residents receive dictates the long-term success of our specialty and the quality of care provided to our patients. Make no mistake, the success of each orthodontic program rests squarely in the arms of its faculty. Every day, faculties should strive to strengthen their programs—strive to make them the best orthodontic programs in the world. Participating in the orthodontic Match strengthens each program and our specialty by promoting good competition. Why? It is a domino effect. By participating in the Match, orthodontic programs agree to a fixed candidate acceptance date: early December. Candidates have time to interview at programs of interest during the fall and rank their preferred programs. Stronger programs get ranked higher, and weaker programs must work to strengthen the education they provide to be more competitive. If all programs competed by participating in the Match, our specialty would be elevated, as would the quality of care orthodontists provide. Not participating in the Match weakens programs and our specialty by promoting bad competition. Why? Non-Match programs do not have a fixed acceptance date. Instead, they compete by pressuring candidates
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 2016 Vol 149 Issue 6