What Name Best Represents Our Specialty? Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon Versus Oral and Facial Surgeon.

PURPOSE: To determine whether changing "oral and maxillofacial surgeon" (OMS) to "oral and facial surgeon" improves the perception and awareness of the OMS's role and surgical scope of practice in undergraduate biomedical and dental students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study requested undergraduate and dental students to select 1 of 5 specialists to treat 21 conditions. Two different surveys were presented: 1 designating specialists as "oral and maxillofacial surgeons" and 1 designating specialists as "oral and facial surgeons." The independent variable was the specialist "oral and maxillofacial surgeon" or "oral and facial surgeon." The dependent variables included specialists chosen for the procedure (ear, nose, and throat surgeon; OMS vs oral and facial surgeon; plastic surgeon; periodontist; and "other"). The test of proportions (z test) with the Yates correction was performed. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 1,671 undergraduate upper division science students and 568 senior dental students. Results showed that undergraduate students' perception of an OMS's surgical scope increased significantly from 28 to 33% when "oral and facial surgeon" was used instead of "oral and maxillofacial surgeon." Dental students' perception of an OMS's surgical scope remained the same whether "oral and maxillofacial surgeon" or "oral and facial surgeon" was used. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that using "oral and facial surgeon" instead of "oral and maxillofacial surgeon" increases awareness of an OMS's surgical scope of practice in undergraduate upper division science students, which could be an important step toward increasing the recognition of the profession by the general public and other non-dental medical colleagues.

What is in a name? Oral and maxillofacial surgeon versus oral surgeon.

PURPOSE: In 1975, the American Society of Oral Surgeons officially changed its name to the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. This change was intended to address the specialty's expanding surgical scope. However, today, many health care professionals continue to use the term oral surgeon. This study was undertaken to determine if students' perception of the oral and maxillofacial surgeon's (OMS) surgical scope would change when oral and maxillofacial surgeon was used instead of oral surgeon. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study surveyed undergraduate and dental students' choice of specialist to treat 21 different conditions. The independent variable was the specialty term (oral and maxillofacial surgeon vs oral surgeon). The dependent variables were specialists chosen for the procedure (ear, nose, and throat surgeon; plastic surgeon; OMS or oral surgeon; periodontist; other). The test of proportions (z test) with the Yates correction was performed for data analysis. RESULTS: Of the 280 senior dental students who were surveyed, 258 surveys were included in the study. Dental students' perception of the OMS's surgical scope increased significantly from 51% to 55% when oral and maxillofacial surgeon was used instead of oral surgeon. Of the 530 undergraduate upper division science students who were surveyed, 488 surveys were included in the study. Undergraduate upper division science students' perception of the OMS's surgical scope increased significantly from 23% to 31% when oral and maxillofacial surgeon was used as an option instead of oral surgeon. CONCLUSION: The use of oral and maxillofacial surgeon increased students' perception of the OMS's surgical scope. This study also suggested that students were not fully aware of the magnitude of the OMS's scope of practice. The current dichotomy and inconsistent use of the specialty's official term adds to the confusion and to misunderstanding. Therefore, OMSs should universally refer to themselves as oral and maxillofacial surgeons and help educate others of their scope.

Peripheral cannabinoids attenuate carcinoma-induced nociception in mice.

We investigated the cannabinoid receptor (CBr) agonists Win55,212-2 (non-selective) and AM1241 (CBr2 selective) and the peripheral receptor (CBr1) in carcinoma-induced pain using a mouse model. Tumors were induced in the hind paw of female mice by local injection of a human oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Significant pain, as indicated by reduction in withdrawal thresholds in response to mechanical stimulation, began at 4 days after SCC inoculation and lasted to 18 days. Local administration of Win55,212-2 (10 mg/kg) and AM1241 (10 mg/kg) significantly elevated withdrawal thresholds, indicating an antinociceptive effect. Ipsilateral expression of CBr1 protein in L5 DRG was significantly upregulated compared to ipsilateral L4 DRG and in normal tissue. These findings support the suggestion that cannabinoids are capable of producing antinociception in carcinoma-induced pain.

Site-specific increases in peripheral cannabinoid receptors and their endogenous ligands in a model of neuropathic pain.

Selective activation of the peripheral cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1R) has been shown to suppress neuropathic pain symptoms in rodents. However, relatively little is known about changes in CB1R and its endogenous ligands during development or maintenance of neuropathic pain. Using immunohistochemistry, Western blot, real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, as well as liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry, we studied the changes in CB1Rs and endocannabinoids N-arachidonoylethanolamine/anandamide (AEA) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol (2-AG) in rat lumbar (L4 and L5) dorsal root ganglia (DRG) after neuropathic pain induction (L5 spinal nerve ligation: SNL). Immunohistochemistry revealed that in control rats, CB1R is expressed in the majority (76-83%) of nociceptive neurons as indicated by co-labeling with isolectin B4 (IB4) or antibodies recognizing transient receptor potential vanilloid (TRPV1), calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP), and the NR2C/2D subunits of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor. After L5 SNL, CB1R mRNA and protein increases in the ipsilateral uninjured L4 DRG whereas the percentages of CB1R immunoreactive (CB1R-ir) neurons remain unchanged in L4 and L5 DRG. However, for these CB1R-ir neurons, we observe significant increases in percentage of TRPV1-ir cells in ipsilateral L4 DRG, and decreases in percentage of IB4- and CGRP-co-labeled cells in ipsilateral L5 DRG. Levels of both AEA and 2-AG increase significantly only in the ipsilateral L5 DRG. These results are consistent with the preserved analgesic effects of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain and provide a rational framework for the development of peripherally acting endocannabinoid-based therapeutic interventions for neuropathic pain.