A multi-centered epidemiological study evaluating the validity of the treatment difficulty indices developed by the Japan Prosthodontic Society.

PURPOSE: The Japan Prosthodontic Society developed a multi-axis assessment protocol to evaluate the complex variations in patients who need prosthodontic care, and to classify the level of treatment difficulty. A previous report found the protocol to be sufficiently reliable. The purpose of this multi-center cohort study was to evaluate the validity of this multi-axis assessment protocol. METHODS: The treatment difficulty was evaluated using the multi-axis assessment protocol before starting prosthodontic treatment. The time required for active prosthodontic treatment, medical resources such as treatment cost, and changes in the oral health-related QOL before and after treatment, were evaluated after treatment completion. The construct validity of this protocol was assessed by the correlation between the dentist's pre-operative subjective assessment of the treatment difficulty, and the level of difficulty determined by this protocol. The predictive validity was assessed estimating the correlations between a "comprehensive level of treatment difficulty" based on the four axes of this protocol and total treatment cost, total treatment time, and changes in the oral health-related QOL before and after treatment. RESULTS: The construct validity of this protocol was well documented except for psychological assessment. Regarding the predictive validity, the comprehensive level of treatment difficulty assessed before treatment was significantly correlated with the three surrogate endpoints known to be related to the treatment difficulty (total treatment cost, treatment time, and improvement in the oral health-related QOL). To further clarify the validity of the protocol according to patients' oral condition, a subgroup analysis by defects was performed. Analyses revealed that treatment difficulty assessment before treatment was significantly related to one or two surrogate endpoints in the fully edentulous patients and the partially edentulous patients. No significant relationship was observed in the patients with mixture of full/partial edentulism and the patients with teeth problems, possibly due to the small sample size in these groups. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that the multi-axis assessment protocol was sufficiently valid to predict the level of treatment difficulty in prosthodontic care in patients with fully edentulous defects and with partially edentulous defects.

Characteristics Identified for Success by Restorative Dental Science Department Chairpersons.

The primary aim of this study was to determine the characteristics that current chairpersons in restorative dentistry, general dentistry, prosthodontics, and operative dentistry departments in U.S. dental schools feel are most relevant in contributing to their success. The secondary aim was to determine these individuals' rankings of the importance of a listed set of characteristics for them to be successful in their position. All 82 current chairs of the specified departments were invited to respond to an electronic survey. The survey first asked respondents to list the five most essential characteristics to serve as chair of a department and to rank those characteristics based on importance. Participants were next given a list of ten characteristics in the categories of management and leadership and, without being aware of the category of each individual item, asked to rank them in terms of importance for their success. A total of 39 chairpersons completed the survey (47.6% response rate; 83.3% male and 16.2% female). In section one, the respondents reported that leadership, vision, work ethic, integrity, communication, and organization were the most essential characteristics for their success. In section two, the respondents ranked the leadership characteristics as statistically more important than the management characteristics (p<0.0001) for being successful in their positions.

Japan Prosthodontic Society position paper on "occlusal discomfort syndrome".

PURPOSE: Dentists may encounter patients who present with a sense of a malocclusion but in whom no objective findings can be detected. For the patient who insists that there is occlusal discomfort, in the absence of evidence some dentists elect to perform an occlusal adjustment that not only fails to alleviate symptoms, and may, in fact, exacerbate the discomfort. The patient-dentist relationship is then likely compromised because of a lack of trust. STUDY SELECTION: In 2011, the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the Japan Prosthodontic Society formulated guidelines for the management of occlusal discomfort. When formulating clinical practice guidelines, the committee bases their recommendations on information derived from scientific evidence. For "occlusal dysesthesia," however, there are an insufficient number of high-quality papers related to the subject. Therefore, a consensus meeting was convened by the Japan Prosthodontic Society to examine evidence in the Japanese- and English-language literature and generate a multi-center survey to create an appropriate appellation for this condition. RESULTS: As a result of the consensus meeting and survey findings, this condition may be justifiably termed "occlusal discomfort syndrome." CONCLUSIONS: The Japan Prosthodontics Society believes that identification of an umbrella term for occlusal discomfort might serve as a useful guide to formulating clinical practice guidelines in the future. This position paper represents summary findings in the literature combined with the results of a multicenter survey focused on dental occlusal treatment and the condition of patients who present with occlusal discomfort syndrome.

International college of prosthodontists reports on post-graduate prosthodontics.

The international college of prosthodontists that regards itself as a representative body of prosthodontists worldwide has been addressing the topics of graduate education for the last decade. Our research and education committee have sent out questionnaires to 250 dental schools and received 42 responses with details of programs and prosthodontics in 24 of these centers. In addition the ICP web site requesting submission of international programs has been active for the last year. Our study showed that responding countries have 3-4 year programs. ICP was involved in drafting a report of the international association of dental schools in Athens and drafting the summary report. In addition the ICP has drafted a recommended post-graduate prosthodontic program curriculum that suggests guidelines for international specialty programs in prosthodontics.

The current status of prosthodontic specialists in Japan--the Japan Prosthodontic Society has played an important role in certification of prosthodontic specialists.

A board certification system for prosthodontic specialists was established in 2005 by the Japan Prosthodontic Society (JPS), significantly later than the system established by the American Board of Prosthodontics in 1947. The purpose of this study is to outline the certification system for prosthodontic specialists in Japan and discuss and evaluate its current status. In 2012, the number of board certified prosthodontic specialists was 1150 and that of mentorial specialists was 693. The number of board certified institutions was 78 and that of certified adjunct institutions was 23. Although the history of the certification system is not very long, we conclude that a well-organized system has been developed. In addition, prosthodontic departments of dental schools also play an important role in the certification system for prosthodontic specialists.

Current status and expected future direction of the prosthodontic speciality in India. JPS Global Workshop Kyoto 2012.

A person with a basic bachelors degree, BDS, from a college/university recognized by the Dental Council of India (DCI) becomes eligible for a Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) in prosthodontics at a college/university recognized by DCI. For this three (3) years Programme of Master of Dental Surgery course with a dissertation, the student/resident has to go through a syllabus as set by the university and approved by the DCI. The continued official approval/certification thereafter is not present in India but all dentists have to get 20 Continued Education points every year for renewal of their DCI registration (though it's only on trial basis right now). Although prosthodontists are officially approved in India but still the common man does not recognize who a prosthodontist is because of lack of awareness. Most general dentists do their prosthetic work themselves, only a small number of them ask for a prosthodontist. Referral to another office is rare, usually the prosthodontist visits the GP's office for consultation and treatment. There is undoubtedly need of continuous certification/evaluation system of the prosthodontists and so is the need of making the masses aware of presence and role of such specialists in India. The Indian Prosthodontic Society is taking initiative to address this issue.

Content and goals of preclinical prosthodontic programs at german-language dental schools.

PURPOSE: The Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE) makes recommendations regarding the skills graduates of European dental schools need to achieve and advises dental schools regarding necessary changes to be made to the curriculum. In 2010 to 2011, a survey was conducted in German-language dental schools to validate the curricula and goals of preclinical prosthodontic programs with regard to laboratory work. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was mailed to the course instructors of the preclinical programs at 37 dental schools. Of these, 35 schools returned the completed survey, resulting in a response rate of 95%. RESULTS: Bent wire, wax-up exercises, metal-ceramic single crowns, fixed dental prostheses, cast metal single crowns, temporary removable dental prostheses, and full dentures were part of the dental laboratory work at most schools; however, most instructors considered laboratory work as less important, and there were few similarities among the programs in this area. According to the instructors responsible for preclinical education, honing of fine motor skills, realistic self-assessment, and the ability to work independently were the main goals of the programs. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey show that with regard to laboratory work, there were more differences than similarities among preclinical prosthodontic programs at German-language dental schools, contrary to the recommendations of the ADEE. These findings should be taken into account when program reforms are planned.