|Action||Amendment to restriction on advertising dental specialties|
|Comment Period||Ends 9/5/2018|
A common theme among dissenters
After thoroughly reading the dissenters' opinions, there seems to be a theme. All of them seem to suggest that advanced CODA accredited training should give specialty recognition.
Why is it then that graduates of CODA accredited residencies in Orofacial Pain, Oral Medicine, and Anesthesia are forced off the ADA list of 9 exclusive specialties? These graduates face the exact burden that was discussed by Dr Richardson as being unfair.
The problem with the proposed text is the legal arguement of what would constitute an unsubstantiated claim? Does this need to be defined further? This is part of what the American Board of Dental Specialties (ABDS) has done, mostly because CODA accredited graduates were being excluded from what is being argued as the definition of a specialist.
The one exception to this might be Implant Dentistry, which from my understanding has fellowship programs, however they are not CODA accredited. However, the ABDS states, "Certifying boards seeking Dental Specialty must require a minimum of two (2) full-time, formal, advanced educational programs that are a minimum of two (2) years in duration and are presented by recognized educational institutions: Any alternate pathway must demonstrate it is equivalent with didactic, clinical and completed cases to their two-year post-graduate training program."