The future of maxillofacial prosthodontics in North America: Part II - A survey.

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.