A case-control study of topical and supplemental fluoride use and osteosarcoma risk.

BACKGROUND: A relationship between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been hypothesized but not validated. To the authors' knowledge, there are no published studies examining topical fluoride or dietary fluoride supplements and osteosarcoma risk. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between ever or never use of topical and dietary fluoride supplements and osteosarcoma. METHODS: The authors performed a secondary data analysis on data from 2 separate but linked studies. Patients for Phase 1 and Phase 2 were selected from US hospitals using a hospital-based matched case-control study design. Case patients were those who had received diagnoses of osteosarcoma, and control patients were those who had received diagnoses of other bone tumors or nonneoplastic conditions. In Phase 1, case patients (N = 209) and control patients (N = 440) were those seeking treatment at orthopedic departments from 1989 through 1993. In Phase 2, incident case patients (N = 108) and control patients (N = 296) were identified and treated by physicians from 1994 through 2000. This analysis included all patients who met eligibility criteria and on whom the authors had complete data on exposure, outcome, and covariates. The authors used conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of topical fluoride use and supplemental fluoride use with osteosarcoma. RESULTS: The adjusted odds ratios were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.46) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.46 to 1.33) for topical fluoride and supplemental fluoride, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neither topical nor dietary fluoride supplements are associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Supplemental and topical fluorides used in the dental office and in over-the-counter products are not related to an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma.

A survey of program directors: trends, challenges, and mentoring in prosthodontics. Part 1.

PURPOSE: This study consisted of two parts. Part 1, a survey of program directors, was conducted to examine current trends in advanced education in prosthodontics in the United States. Part 2 will report on the survey results distributed to the deans of US dental schools to evaluate their observations of trends in prosthodontics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national e-mail survey of 45 program directors was used to collect enrollment data for years 1 to 3 of prosthodontics training for US and international dental school graduates, the total number of applicants and applications considered, and the trends over time of applicants to prosthodontic programs for US dental school graduates and for international graduates. In addition, the program directors were asked to rank 13 key factors that may have contributed to any changes in the prosthodontic applicant pool. Comments were accepted on why more or less US- or internationally trained applicants have applied. Program directors were also asked for information on student financial incentives, whether their programs were state or federally funded, and whether their sponsoring institution was a dental school. RESULTS: Of the 45 program directors, 39 responded, for an 86.7% response rate. Respondents reported that 64% of their enrollments were graduates of US dental schools. Between 2000 and 2004 the applicant pool in prosthodontics increased by 23%, with 41% of program directors reporting an increase in US-trained applicants, 46.2% reporting no change, and only 12.8% reporting a decrease. Using the Spearman correlation, there was a moderate, positive statistically significant correlation that the following factors contributed to an increase in the number of US dental graduates applying to prosthodontic programs: (1) mentoring by prosthodontists at the predoctoral level, (2) interest in prosthodontics among US dental students, and (3) society's demand for a higher level of training and credentialing, (4) data depicting current and projected income for dental specialists, and (5) number of trained prosthodontists full- or part-time faculty at the predoctoral level. Only five programs offered no financial packages to offset tuition. The remaining 34 respondents reported some financial package. Among the respondents, there were 25 state-sponsored programs, 9 sponsored by private universities, and 5 sponsored by hospitals or federal agencies. CONCLUSION: An increased applicant pool and more US-trained applicants to prosthodontics programs create a more competitive applicant pool for our specialty. Program directors reported that factors such as mentoring, society's demand for a higher level of training and credentialing, data depicting current and projected income for prosthodontists, exposure to prosthodontic faculty at the predoctoral level, the dollar value of prosthodontic training, and advances in implant, aesthetic, and reconstructive dentistry have all had some impact on increasing the applicant pool to prosthodontic training in the United States.

A survey of deans: trends, challenges, and mentoring in prosthodontics. Part 2.

PURPOSE: This study consists of two parts. Part 1, a survey of program directors, was conducted to examine current trends in advanced education in prosthodontics in the United States. Part 2 reports on the findings of a survey distributed to the deans of US dental schools to evaluate their observations of trends in prosthodontic education. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national, electronic survey of 55 dental school deans was distributed by e-mail to evaluate an interest in specialty training, an interest in specialization in prosthodontics, faculty shortages, programs to address faculty shortages, predoctoral curriculum in prosthodontics, opinions regarding dental specialties, and the administrative position of prosthodontics within the schools. RESULTS: Of the 55 deans, 44 deans responded, an 80% response rate. Only five deans reported a decrease in the number of students seeking specialty training after dental school. The remaining 39 deans reported a large increase, slight increase, or no change in those seeking specialty training. In 29.6% of the deans' responses, an increased interest in prosthodontics was reported, whereas 16 deans reported no change in the level of interest. One or more open faculty positions in prosthodontics existed at 29 dental schools, and 28 schools offered at least one incentive or a variety of incentives to recruit faculty. The respondents to the deans' survey revealed predoctoral student exposure to prosthodontists was high, and exposure to postgraduate prosthodontics students was low. A survey of internal school programs that might have an impact on an increased interest in prosthodontics revealed the presence of a predoctoral mentoring program for prosthodontics in 80% of the institutions. The clinical curriculum included treatment of a variety of cases, including complex cases as defined by a diagnostic classification system. The response to whether dental specialties should be combined or remain individual provided some interesting data. Only 40.9% of the deans responded that prosthodontics was a separate department. CONCLUSION: Dental school deans reported an increased interest in specialty training. Predoctoral student exposure to prosthodontics was high due to the nature of their clinical experience and due to the exposure to full-time prosthodontics faculty. Many dental schools have programs, such as mentoring and new technology, which might have an impact on predoctoral students' increased interest in prosthodontics.