Research and Education
The future of maxillofacial prosthodontics in North America: Part II – A survey

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.013Get rights and content

Abstract

Statement of problem

Head and neck care has been transformed by the introduction of advanced digital technologies that will continue to be important change drivers for maxillofacial prosthodontics. Insight into these changes is important in answering the question of whether maxillofacial prosthodontics is appropriately prepared to contribute effectively to future multidisciplinary care of the head and neck.

Purpose

The purpose of this survey was to gain insight into the perception of changes experienced by maxillofacial prosthodontists in relation to clinical practice. The findings of this survey may assist the future development of the subspecialty.

Material and methods

An exploratory cross-sectional survey was conducted by using a convenience sample of members of the American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics. The survey considered 10 domains and 31 questions. Fully completed surveys (164) provided a 59% response. Descriptive statistics used percentage responses to reduce and characterize perceptions across respondents.

Results

Eighty-four percent of the respondents were from the United States. Results should be interpreted based on this cohort. Respondents reported a change in care delivered over the past 10 years (72%), with the most important causes of change attributed to surgery (60%) and advanced digital technologies (56%). Respondents perceived advanced digital technologies as being central to the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics (89%) and important in attracting younger colleagues (88%). Sixty-three percent believed training programs were not providing adequate education and training in the use of advanced digital technology.

Conclusions

The perception of maxillofacial prosthodontists regarding changes taking place in care delivery was that the most important changes in the past 10 years were attributed to surgery and advanced digital technologies, that persisting pressures related to few institutional positions, that the subspecialty was poorly visible, that remuneration for care was inadequate and referring disciplines did not understand the subspecialty, that advanced digital technologies were considered central to the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics and important to attract younger colleagues to the subspecialty, that barriers to advanced digital technology use included funding for equipment acquisition, institutional funding support, and remuneration for their use in care delivery, and that maxillofacial prosthodontic programs were not providing adequate education and training in advanced digital technologies.

Section snippets

Material and methods

An exploratory cross-sectional survey was undertaken on a convenience sample consisting of members of the American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics (AAMP). The survey considered 10 domains (Table 1) and 31 questions (Supplementary Table 1 available online). Ethics approval was submitted to the Health Research Ethics Board, University of Alberta, who determined that an ethics approval for the described study was not required. This was communicated to the coauthors so that they could obtain

Demographics

The 164 fully completed surveys constituted a 59% survey response rate. Most respondents (84%) were based in the United States and 4% were based in Canada, constituting a combined North American cohort of 88% (Fig. 1). Eighty-one percent of the respondents were maxillofacial prosthodontists and 17% were prosthodontists. Eighty percent of the respondents had 11 years or more of clinical experience. The primary places of work for respondents were private practice (42%) and institutional

Discussion

This exploratory cross-sectional survey showed that maxillofacial prosthodontists acknowledged the changes in clinical care delivery that have largely been driven by innovations in head and neck surgery and the introduction of ADTs. Survey respondents provided insight into to these changes in clinical care delivery, as well as the associated challenges related to the use of ADTs.

The survey found that while 81% of respondents were maxillofacial prosthodontists, 35% of the care delivered by

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this exploratory cross-sectional survey of maxillofacial prosthodontists, the following conclusions were drawn:

  • 1.

    Persisting concerns included remuneration for care, availability of few institutional positions, and poor understanding of maxillofacial prosthodontic care by dentistry, medicine, and the public.

  • 2.

    Maxillofacial prosthodontic care delivery was reported to have changed in the past 10 years, with the most important changes attributed to surgery and ADTs, considered

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Thomas Salinas, American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics (AAMP) for his assistance with sending the survey to members of the AAMP.

Lawrence Brecht and Robert Taft are past Presidents of the American Academy of Maxillofacial Prosthetics. Johan Wolfaardt is a past member of the Board of Directors of the Academy.

The present manuscript is derived from a report on the future of maxillofacial prosthodontics in North America provided to the President, American Academy of

References (30)

  • P.T. Tack et al.

    3D printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review

    Biome Eng Online

    (2016)
  • D. Mitsouras et al.

    Medical 3D printing for the radiologist

    Radiographics

    (2015)
  • M.E. Elbashti et al.

    Application of digital technologies in maxillofacial prosthetics literature: a 10-year observation of five selected prosthodontic journals

    Int J Prosthodont

    (2019)
  • D.J. Okay et al.

    Computer- assisted implant rehabilitation of maxillomandibular defects reconstructed with vascularized bone free flaps

    JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

    (2013)
  • X. Qu et al.

    Occlusion guided double barreled fibular osteoseptocutaneous free flap for refined mandibular reconstruction aided by virtual surgical planning

    J Craniofac Surg

    (2017)

    • Cited by (0)

    Supported by The Maxillofacial Foundation. The Maxillofacial Foundation was not involved in the study. In the course of the present work, Lawrence Brecht assumed the position of President of The Maxillofacial Foundation. The coauthors of the present work did not consider that this in any way influenced the contribution to the present work by Lawrence Brecht.

    View full text
    © 2020 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.