A confusing situation

The problems concerning or*thotlonti~s and the ctluc~ation;ll (lu;llifi<~:rtiorls of those who shall practice it have long IWC~II introduced into A. 1). A. co111- mittens, councils. anil l)oi~~~tls. Thcrc cilrr 1)~s Ilo contratlic+ting th<x fi1c.t that members of the American Associat,iorr of Orthotlontists have stri\-cxil to work for that which the A. II. A. also hns RS its highc>st gOill--thP ptxtPction Of’ th(, dental health, of the public.

The education of a11 orthodontist hits l)(~e~l c*onsitlcrc~tl by the A. A. 0. to be SO important that it has hec~n the nlost vitill issue 011 th(b i~~(~~ltl~ of tllcl annual sessions.

When t,he hut anti cry of “not (‘rrough ort.hodontists” became a I~o~~L~lir 1’ ant1 often heard tl~rnantl, the A. A. 0. utrtl~~rtook to caxpand the horizorr of

ctlucational opportunities by instituting a rigid supervised preceptorship pro- gram. This program, while functioning extremely well in a great majority of instances and administered by a group of dedicated men, did prove by the comparatively small nurnbcrs enrolled that the demand was not as great as originally supposed. With time, the A. U. A., feeling that the education of an orthodontist should bc under the jurisdiction of accredited dental schools, established a cut-off date (1967) for a phasing-out of the program. Little or no opposition to this has been voiced by the American Association of Ortho- tlontist,s, for we have the same desire to elevate our educational standards to the university lcvcl.

The American Association of Orthodontists has been so alive to its W- spotrsibilit,y that it has rcorganizcd its cornmittce structure, and some .5 years ago the Education Committee was cnla rged into a Council on Orthodontic Htlucation with teaching, pra&Gng, and American Hoard representation. This (‘ouncil has been the most active of all aTeas within the organization. A wcll- received brochure, prepared by the C’ouncil and dealing with the conrplctc picture of orthodontics was and is t*cgarded as a handbook for the A. A. 0.

Our tlcsirc to communirntc and to cooperate with the A. D. A. in a11 nmtters has lma more than ndeyuatcly c~xprcssed. At long last, within the past 12 months, an orthodontist has been listed among the twent!--five or rnor~~ consultants nametl each year to th(s C’ouncil on Dental Education.

\Vithin the past 8 years the ~‘ouncil on Orthodontic Education has been apl)ronched with a hospital intr~rrshil)--rc’siclerrc.y program for the education of an orthodontist. Tn keeping with the cooperative effort regarding such r~ratte~s, the matter was referred to the (‘ouncil on l)etrtnl Education of the Anic~rican U)cntal Association.

Site-visit committees were appointed by the C. I). 1:. on two occasions. The A. A. 0. was represented by a different member on each visit. The initial visit, resulted in rejection of the proposition. After* several months the second c*onimittec, by majority vote. recotnmendcd to the (1. L). E. its acceptance as ;I, I)ilot program. In turn, (~“onrmittcc IZ of the A. I). A.‘s (‘oancil on Dental Idducation voted six to two to provide orthotlontic education by rnrans of this internship-residency program in an outpatient clinic of a hospit,al, wit,h basic scicnre courses being taught in a ncarb! medical school. Subsequentl,v, the .I. I). A.‘s Council on Dental TMucntion confirmed (‘onitnittec R’s vote.

The confusing facts are these : The voice of organizctl orthodontics was restricted to one vote-a nrcare whisper. Thtacc affirmative votes were cast by tncmbcrs of a dental sl)ccialty other than or*thodont,ics, and two votc>s were’ (*irst by nrember*s of still another specialty. So nrrxngement n-as announced as to studvttt selection other than supposc~lly by the l)rogratn dirc&ctor. Or~thodontics hat1 not been npproachctl with rclspect to providing a rn~ntrs of supervising thcl ~)~~)gt’nrrr or’ examining the prsofiGc>ncy of those \vho cotrrpletc the pr’ogrxrlr. l:oth of thrsca tquirenlc~trts are CIII integr<al 1~1 tat of our I)t*rcchptorship I)ro- ~:l’iltttS.

It is coufnsing that otr th(a ottc hatttl WC are in t-ho l)roc’ess OC phasing out 011t’ l)rcq)torshil) c~tlrrc~atiotr;rl l)t’()g~‘a~rl, albc4t irtrd(sr supervision of an A. A. 0.

Qualifying Cfonmittcc, while 011 the othtbr hand th(b C. 1). E. is bringing into being a nieaiis of progmmmin Q orthodontic instruction equally f’ar from buna fide university discipliuc with but one cxccption, na~mcly, that of approxi- mately 16 weeks of part-time basic science lccturcs during the first year.

Sornc 35 years ago the dental profession iu the state of Arizona was hantlctl a11 “orthodontic law” which scpuratetl the education of an ortho- dontist from that of a dentist and allowed men to practice orthodontics who had not been trained in the basic science of tlcutistry. At first, this law was not taken seriously hy many mcml)crs of the state dental society. As time passed thr seriousness of th(h situation was realizetl sutl, after 6 years of hard work, cspcnse, and some in,jurcd feelings. th(b law was finally rcpcaled in 1935. This was done by Arizona dentistry itself. with strong support from the editor of thr AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODOXTICS.

Obviously, the dentists of Arizona were convinced that orthodontics is, it1 fact, an integral part, of dentistr) and that orthodontic education should rt- main under the supervision of bona tide dental boards and dental schools. In this, orthodontics concurs.

As originally stated, orthodontics has grown in numbers. in scientific prowess, and! most of iill, in expericnee. Surely, some form of assistance will 1~ sought of orthodontics in dctcrmining its educational rcquircmcnts. Th(L ultimate in guidance is a necessity in the prcll)aration of a professional mau to serve the needs of a tlisccrniug public.

3:. E. 8’.