The Dental School Applicant Pool and the Oral Healthcare Workforce

One of the major challenges faced by the dental profession today is the recruitment of the most qualified dental school applicants who are capable of serving the nation’s future oral healthcare needs. The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) also recognizes this challenge, describing one of the three core functions of public health as “assuring that all populations have access to appropriate and cost effective care, including health promotion and disease prevention services.” To achieve this core function, the ASPH cites “a competent public health and personal healthcare workforce” as one of the ten essential public health services. Unfortunately, the goals of both quality and equality in terms of the dental workforce and access to oral healthcare have yet to be realized. When considering access to oral health services on a national or state level, a thoughtful and thorough consideration of the dental school applicant pool is essential. According to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, the annual number of retiring dentists will exceed the number of newly licensed dental practitioners in 2009, a trend which is projected to continue throughout the next decade. The approximately 4,400 dentists produced each year from the nation’s 57 accredited dental education programs are charged with the responsibility of meeting the oral healthcare needs of the population at large.

The Perceived Prognosis of Endodontic Treatment and Implant Therapy Among Dental Practitioners

Little data concerning the perceived success of implant therapy in comparison with endodontic treatment exists. While the criteria used to measure the outcome of each modality are not the same, it is not clear if this is appreciated by practicing dentists. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the perceived outcome of implant therapy in comparison to endodontic treatment. A 23 question Web-based survey was distributed to 648 dentists who matriculated from the University of Connecticut School Of Dental Medicine over the past 30 years. The response rate was 47%. Sixty-seven percent of respondents were general dentists. Forty-nine percent of respondents did not know different criteria exist in the literature and are used to evaluate implant and root canal treatment. Fifty-four percent of dentists felt the prognosis of implant therapy was the same as or better than endodontic treatment of teeth with vital pulps. Thirty percent of responders thought root canal treatment of teeth with necrotic pulp was superior to implants and only 16% thought retreatment was preferable. Treatment planning for implant placement vs. retreatment of a restorable tooth was 46% and 32%, respectively. A third of the respondents felt that the role of endodontics will decline in the future. Dentists’ primary source of information regarding implant therapy was continuing education; however, their primary source of information regarding endodontic treatment was their dental program. Dentists felt the prognosis of implant therapy was as good or superior to endodontic treatment of teeth with vital, necrotic or previously treated pulps.