OMFS the bastard child of Medicine and Dentistry

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

xXCOwHoRnXx

Full Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
During these past months, after traveling across the country to interview at various Oral Surgery programs and learning about them in detail, I have come across an issue often spoken about but rarely seriously addressed.
Oral Surgery brings out the underlying problem that medicine does not respect the mouth and thus has neglected that body part as some auxillary appendage to be soley dealt by "dental".

The fact that not all surgery programs are 6 year bothers me. Why have we as a profession stayed so divided?? Dentistry seems to be the most cliquey profession out there. You have rivalries between perio and OS, between pedo and ortho, and endo with the GP's. then you have the OS guyz who claim that 6 is better or 4 is just as good if not better due to more "surgey experience".

What if all OS programs where 6 years? Why not???
One point i think is valid is because you dont need an MD degree to make the bucks. Wizzies alone can bring in HUGE cash but mandible fractures or orthognathic seems to be a charitable service relegated to academics. Why hasn't OMFS faught the HMO's like medicine?? Imgaine if Orthognathics and trauma braught in more $$$ than wizzies, I would guess that more guyz would do the 6 year with fellowships then.

Just random thought guyz, hopefully start some intelligent forum talk about OMFS. Or get flamed, either way i've killed time before my next patient.
peace

Members don't see this ad.
 
Why hasn't OMFS faught the HMO's like medicine?? Imgaine if Orthognathics and trauma braught in more $$$ than wizzies, I would guess that more guyz would do the 6 year with fellowships then.

Why haven't we fought HMO's like medicine? Because medicine has no choice but to fight and guess what? They are LOSING big time! You have any idea what a general surgeon gets paid for a lap choly?

The other point about orthognathics and trauma? That makes no difference if you are a 4 or 6 year person. And you don't need a fellowship to do either as you seem to suggest.
 
During these past months, after traveling across the country to interview at various Oral Surgery programs and learning about them in detail, I have come across an issue often spoken about but rarely seriously addressed.
Oral Surgery brings out the underlying problem that medicine does not respect the mouth and thus has neglected that body part as some auxillary appendage to be soley dealt by "dental".

The fact that not all surgery programs are 6 year bothers me. Why have we as a profession stayed so divided?? Dentistry seems to be the most cliquey profession out there. You have rivalries between perio and OS, between pedo and ortho, and endo with the GP's. then you have the OS guyz who claim that 6 is better or 4 is just as good if not better due to more "surgey experience".

What if all OS programs where 6 years? Why not???
One point i think is valid is because you dont need an MD degree to make the bucks. Wizzies alone can bring in HUGE cash but mandible fractures or orthognathic seems to be a charitable service relegated to academics. Why hasn't OMFS faught the HMO's like medicine?? Imgaine if Orthognathics and trauma braught in more $$$ than wizzies, I would guess that more guyz would do the 6 year with fellowships then.

Just random thought guyz, hopefully start some intelligent forum talk about OMFS. Or get flamed, either way i've killed time before my next patient.
peace

Plain and simple, the MD ISN'T necessary. It is nice, it is an adjunct, it enriches those who do it (not $$$ but knowledge enriching)and it might open up more opportunities. I've done multiple rotations with medical students thinking that I was so inferior, only to find that I could crush them in almost every way. If the four year is hospital based with a wide scope, you will see, get exposed to, treat and feel comfortable with most anything that you will need to or that a medical student will. This is my opinion. I have MD and certificate attendings and trust me, the MD isn't necessary and the certificate guy is just as competent if not more than other attendings even those that attended top 5 medical schools.... I listen to guys like Ellis, Marx, Van Sickles, Haug and many others and I think, if you want to be a stallion you will be a stallion with or without medical school. Med school helps but it isn't necessary. I've seen plenty of "over-degreed" tooth shuckers who were an extreme disappointment in terms of knowledge, skill, and scope.... Excellence and opportunity is up to the individual and his training not the degrees behind his name. I can see how my opinion might upset those who have spent many years working hard on their MDs but I stand behind my statements. Look at those who fail OMFS boards and see their distribution between MDs and non-MDs... it is very telling. Plenty of certificate guys around the country are doing excellent wide scope OMFS, cosmetics etcetera without the MD. It might take a little more work, a little wiggling, and some time and sacrifice but it can be developed....
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Plain and simple, the MD ISN'T necessary. It is nice, it is an adjunct, it enriches those who do it (not $$$ but knowledge enriching)and it might open up more opportunities. I've done multiple rotations with medical students thinking that I was so inferior, only to find that I could crush them in almost every way. If the four year is hospital based with a wide scope, you will see, get exposed to, treat and feel comfortable with most anything that you will need to or that a medical student will. This is my opinion. I have MD and certificate attendings and trust me, the MD isn't necessary and the certificate guy is just as competent if not more than other attendings even those that attended top 5 medical schools.... I listen to guys like Ellis, Marx, Van Sickles, Haug and many others and I think, if you want to be a stallion you will be a stallion with or without medical school. Med school helps but it isn't necessary. I've seen plenty of "over-degreed" tooth shuckers who were an extreme disappointment in terms of knowledge, skill, and scope.... Excellence and opportunity is up to the individual and his training not the degrees behind his name. I can see how my opinion might upset those who have spent many years working hard on their MDs but I stand behind my statements. Look at those who fail OMFS boards and see their distribution between MDs and non-MDs... it is very telling. Plenty of certificate guys around the country are doing excellent wide scope OMFS, cosmetics etcetera without the MD. It might take a little more work, a little wiggling, and some time and sacrifice but it can be developed....


Gary "the Bastard" Ruska here,
GR agrees with much of what has been said thus far. However, people always like to give the examples of Fonseca, Ellis, Marx, JVS, Haug, to make the argument for the 4-year programs. What they neglect to mention is that, when these luminaries trained, there were very few MD-integrated programs (<7) and most who obtained the MD did so of their own accord. If you ask some of these same attendings what path they would choose if they were applying today where about 40% of the programs are MD integrated, you might be surprised, as GR has been, at some of the responses.

Another point to make is that, while TRAINING should be the basis upon which privileges for procedures are allocated, this is not always the case in the real world, where ego oftentimes surpasses logic and reason. If you want to do things that are generally considered "expanded scope" by people OUTSIDE OMFS (i.e. ENTs, GS, Plastics, etc.), the MD is a valuable card to have in your hand. The key here is with respect to people outside of OMFS - there are few in OMFS that would say that the MD makes you better at cosmetics, craniofacial, or cancer.

The January JOMS has a letter to the editor by Deepak K. in response to a previous editorial about this conflict. Some nice reading, if you're interested.
 
Bifid "spank the periodontists" Uvula here would also like to point out that historically... Anesthesiology and Plastic/Reconstructive Surgery are also the offsprings of DENTISTRY. Damn, we used to get around back in the day...
:smuggrin: :smuggrin: :smuggrin:
 
Bifid "spank the periodontists" Uvula here would also like to point out that historically... Anesthesiology and Plastic/Reconstructive Surgery are also the offsprings of DENTISTRY. Damn, we used to get around back in the day...
:smuggrin: :smuggrin: :smuggrin:
Bill "has an enormous" Johnson here,

Anesthesia I knew about...but PRS? How did they grow out of dentistry?
 
NYUCD "safety school" 2010 here,

I'm actually curious about dentistry's giving birth to both anesthesiology and plastic/reconstructive surgery. Can someone provide a short explanation on both connections so I can act badass around my cousins in med school during family gatherings this Christmas?

Bill "has an enormous" Johnson here,

Anesthesia I knew about...but PRS? How did they grow out of dentistry?
 
Bill "has an enormous" Johnson here,

Anesthesia I knew about...but PRS? How did they grow out of dentistry?

In the early 1900s, WWI brought a ton of disfiguring facial injuries which had never really been seen, much less treated (there were no high-speed automobiles and highways). There weren't any bonafide surgical "specialties"...mainly just general surgeons (and dentists) who took an interest in these sort of reconstructions. I think the first "specialty" in this area was called "oral and plastic surgery" or something like that. It wasn't long in the middle of the last century that these people parted company as subspecialties of surgery grew from the MD side.
 
Modern Plastic Surgery was born during the WWI era... Among the most prominent surgeons running around in the trenches and the military hospitals were Dental and Oral Surgeons who were repairing facial injuries, especially broken mandibles.

Here is a great reference of Dentistry's Role, along with a few excerpts...
The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 61, Issue 8, Pages 943-950 (August 2003)

Maxillofacial surgery in world war I: the role of the dentists and surgeons


In the spring of 2001, the Louisiana State University School of Dentistry (LSUSD) library received a collection of World War I photographs and documents from a Baton Rouge dentist, who had received it from a patient. In the 160 photographs, pasted into a worn and brittle album, appear the mutilated faces of American soldiers who had sustained severe maxillofacial injuries from gunshots and shrapnel. These images, showing the progression of treatment and healing, reveal the skill and ingenuity of the American surgeons and dentists who not only saved the soldiers’ lives but also repaired and reconstructed their disfiguring wounds to restore some quality of life to the soldiers.

The collection originally belonged to Dr Thomas Mariner Terry (1889-1967), a New Orleans dentist who served in France during World War I. His niece, Margaret Shuffield, inherited the album and gave it to her dentist, Dr Kevin Hester, an alumnus of LSUSD, who then donated it to the dental school. The album has photographs and drawings of appliances and casts that were used in the patients’ treatment. In addition to the album, the collection includes 2 group photographs, a letter from one of Terry’s patients, and Terry’s discharge and military papers, which indicate that he served overseas from April 15, 1918, until February 27, 1919.

Terry graduated from the Chicago College of Dental Surgery in 1908 and practiced dentistry in downtown New Orleans on Canal Street. According to his obituary in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, he specialized in oral and plastic facial surgery.1 A life member of the American Dental Association, he was still listed in the association membership directory in 1967.

The letter in the collection from Sgt Leon Hansen, dated March 22, 1919, reveals significant details. Hansen indicates that he was Terry’s patient at a hospital in Vichy, France, and that he received further treatment at a hospital at Fort McHenry. He names several prominent surgeons whom he encountered at Vichy and then later at Fort McHenry, a US military hospital where complex reconstructive surgery was performed. Among the surgeons he mentions are Vilray P. Blair, who organized the effort to treat maxillofacial injuries in the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), and Robert H. Ivy, his assistant.

The 15-volume set, The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War, which is in the LSUSD Library collection, details the activities of the Surgeon General’s Office (SGO) for the AEF and includes extensive information on the treatment of maxillofacial injuries.2 Volume 11, Surgery, has 3 chapters devoted to maxillofacial surgery; 2 of these chapters describe the treatment of maxillofacial injuries in the AEF in France, and the other chapter reviews cases of patients who were evacuated to US hospitals for reconstructive surgery. The latter describes procedures performed on a number of the patients in Terry’s album and includes photographs showing the final result of their multiple surgeries. Among these patients is Hansen, who was one of the most severely injured soldiers in the group.



When the United States entered the war in April 1917, Europe had already been on the battlefield for more than 3 years. By the time of the armistice on November 11, 1918, more than 30,500 American physicians and 4600 dental officers had been in service of the AEF.3 In addition to the basic dental care that dentists provided for soldiers in preparation for deployment overseas, they served as assistant medical officers at the front, caring for facial wounds, assisting with the debridement and closure of wounds, administering anesthetics, and sorting casualties.4 Each hospital in the AEF had dental staff and equipment.5

Because trench warfare dominated this war, the majority of serious wounds were to the head and neck. Steel helmets saved lives but increased the number of facial injuries from shells, bullets, and other projectile fragments ricocheting off the hard helmet surface.6 Of the 8,607 total facial injuries, 316 deaths (3.67%) resulted, which was lower than the average of 7.73% of deaths for all types of injuries.7 Two thirds of the soldiers with facial and jaw injuries returned to duty after treatment, whereas the remaining patients requiring reconstructive surgery were evacuated to hospitals in the United States for further treatment.

Two principles for the treatment of maxillofacial cases were established during this war. One was to combine the expertise of dentists in oral infections and injuries and jaw fractures with the experience of general surgeons and to assign them as teams to hospitals. A second principle was to initiate early treatment and to continue it systematically. Dentists’ and surgeons’ adherence to these principles guided the injured from the battlefield to the evacuation hospitals in the United States.8

Before World War I, no formal training programs existed for the treatment of maxillofacial injuries. Early in the war, British and French soldiers with extensive facial injuries wore masks to hide their deformities. Artists often painted the masks to appear as natural as possible. Although the SGO investigated the use of masks and even trained technicians to create them, they found that patients actually preferred plastic reconstruction.9 In July 1917, Surgeon General William C. Gorgas organized a Section of Plastic and Oral Surgery and appointed Vilray P. Blair, a surgeon from Washington University in St Louis, to be the senior consultant for maxillofacial surgery and chief of the section. He named Robert H. Ivy, a dental surgeon from Philadelphia, to be his assistant. Their first task was to train general surgeons and dentists to work together to treat maxillofacial wounds.

The SGO conducted short intensive courses ranging from 3 to 6 weeks from October 1917 through March 1918, at Washington University in St Louis, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Northwestern University in Chicago. More than 200 prominent surgeons and 800 dental school faculty members received letters from the SGO soliciting names of qualified students. At the end of each course, instructors reported to the SGO each student’s progress and ranking. About 86% of the 164 medical officers and 123 dental officers enrolled completed the course satisfactorily and were assigned in teams of one surgeon and one dentist to each unit overseas.8

The short courses brought dentists and surgeons together to share their knowledge and, according to Major Ivy, to “review the anatomy, the principles of plastic surgery, of splinting and the treatment of infections and sepsis of the face and jaw bones.” The intensive courses included lectures, dissection of cadavers, laboratory work, and seminars in which students presented abstracts of current literature. A total of 110 surgeons and dentists from private practice and local medical and dental schools taught in these courses.10 In 1918, the 3 civilian schools were replaced by a school of plastic and oral surgery at Camp Greenleaf, the medical officers’ training camp organized at Fort Oglethorpe in Georgia. The army conducted two 4-week sessions here in November and December.8, 11

The SGO prepared and distributed literature to enhance the training of dentists and surgeons. Publications in the library of the SGO were abstracted and reprinted in The Military Surgeon. In 1917, the SGO sponsored a revised edition of Blair’s 1913 textbook, Surgery and Diseases of the Mouth and Jaws. With new information on treating gunshot wounds of the face, this book was designated the official textbook of the Section of Plastic and Oral Surgery and placed in every hospital overseas and in the United States. In addition, the SGO, from 1918 to 1919, published abstracts of current articles on maxillofacial surgery in 2 of its journals, Review of War Surgery and Medicine and Survey of Head Surgery.8

By the time the United States entered the war, the Allies had already gained significant experience in surgery and reconstruction of maxillofacial cases. A unit of 20 surgeons and 20 dentists was sent to France in April 1918 and, for several months until they were needed in their own hospitals, observed the work of prominent surgeons and dentists in hospitals in England and France. Three American dentists, George B. Hayes and William S. Davenport of the American Ambulance Hospital in Neuilly, and Varaztad Kazanjian, chief dental officer in the First Harvard Unit with the British Expeditionary Forces (BEF), had volunteered to treat the maxillofacial injuries of French and British soldiers in France several years before the United States entered the war. Sir Harold Gillies, surgeon at Queen’s Hospital at Sidcup in Kent; Hyppolyte Morestin, plastic surgeon in the French Army in Paris; and Auguste Valadier, dentist in the BEF in Boulogne, also shared their expertise with the AEF officers.9 In their own hospitals, the team members had the advantage of combining techniques learned in their training at home with those observed in the French and British hospitals.12

Because the AEF was not able to send all of the specially trained surgeons and dentists overseas, the original plan to staff every mobile, evacuation, and base hospital with a maxillofacial team was replaced by the decision to send a dentist to each mobile and evacuation hospital to work with the general surgeon at that hospital on patients with jaw fractures.13 The 40 specially trained surgeons and dentists were assigned to each of 10 special oral units in the intermediate and base zones. On June 30, 1918, Base Hospital No. 115, designated a special head hospital, was mobilized for overseas service with 4 surgeons and 2 dentists with training in oral and plastic surgery and sent to Vichy, France.8

Blair, now a lieutenant colonel, was named the senior consultant for maxillofacial surgery, and Ivy, now a major, the local consultant for the advance section. A local consultant, assigned to each of 7 areas in France, supervised a certain number of hospitals in his area or section and was in turn supervised by the chief consultant.14 However, because surgeons were often sent to the front, leaving hospitals with inadequate personnel, consultants were frequently required to assist the dentists in the hospitals.12

Special records created during the treatment of maxillofacial injuries included photographs, drawings, plaster and wax models, and plaster masks. The surgeon general assigned artists, photographers, and wax modelers to the hospitals designated for maxillofacial treatment overseas and in the United States. Although records of completed cases were sent to the Army Medical Museum, few of the masks, models, and photographs remain today,15 but a number of photographs of appliances and drawings of appliances, signed by A. L. Fraser, are part of Terry’s collection at LSUSD (FIGURE 3, FIGURE 4.

Numerous dentists and surgeons who innovated the treatment of maxillofacial injuries during World War I also played a significant role in the development of their profession after the war. Sir Harold Gillies, from New Zealand, established the first plastic surgery unit in the British Army and originated many of the techniques later used by the AEF in the war, such as the tubed pedicle flap. Considered the founder of plastic surgery as well as a pioneer in cosmetic surgery, he is honored by plastic surgeons in the United States with the Harold Delf Gillies Award, which the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery presents annually for the best research paper.28

Vilray Blair, who was responsible for the infrastructure of the AEF maxillofacial service during the war, was later instrumental in the creation of plastic surgery as a separate specialty. He brought the team treatment of maxillofacial injuries to Walter Reed Hospital, where he formed a multidisciplinary team with prosthetic dentists, oral surgeons, otolaryngologists, ophthalmologists, and neurosurgeons. He was also one of the first non-oral surgeons elected to the American Association of Plastic Surgeons and was a founder of the American Board of Plastic Surgery in 1938.29

Robert Ivy, Blair’s assistant in the Section of Oral and Plastic Surgery and head of maxillofacial reconstruction at Walter Reed during World War I, earned both dental and medical degrees at the University of Pennsylvania. Among his accomplishments was the formation of the first multidisciplinary team for the treatment of cleft lip and palate in North America. Ivy continued to be active in both oral surgery and plastic surgery organizations throughout his long, distinguished career.29, 30

Varaztad Kazanjian, an American dentist from Harvard University Dental School, went to France in 1915 as chief dental officer for the First Harvard Unit. As the first person to treat fractured jaws and facial wounds in the British Expeditionary Forces, he was known as the “miracle man of the western front.” After the war, Kazanjian became professor of oral military surgery at Harvard University. In 1921 he completed medical school and in 1941 was appointed the first professor of plastic surgery at Harvard University.31

Oral surgery was relatively unformed as a dental specialty before the war. The need for treatment of maxillofacial trauma led to recognition of the unique skills of oral surgeons. Sir Kelsey Fry, the pioneer British oral surgeon, teamed with Gillies during the war to provide expertise on hard dental tissue to complement Gillies’ knowledge of soft tissue. Their collaboration continued for 40 years.32 After the war, Fry fought in vain until the beginning of World War II to gain recognition in Britain of oral surgeons as acknowledged specialists. In the United States, however, the American Society of Exodontists was formed at the 1918 annual session of the National Dental Association.33

Blair, Kazanjian, Gillies, Ivy, Fry, and other military dentists and surgeons published textbooks describing their experiences and innovative procedures during the war. Many of the principles and practices that these practitioners established during World War I were carried into World War II. For example, the 2 basic principles of teaming surgeons and dentists and instituting early and systematic treatment continued during the later war. The emphasis on treating maxillofacial patients at designated hospitals and evacuating them to the United States in supervised groups on specially equipped transports also proved successful in World War II.4

The LSUSD collection of photographs of World War I soldiers with maxillofacial injuries opens the door to a fascinating era in the history of medicine and dentistry. The search for historical information reveals a wealth of stories of soldiers who were devastated by these injuries, of dentists and surgeons who pioneered their treatment, and of the military operation that addressed the medical problem. During the war, the systematic treatment of maxillofacial injuries that teamed the unique skills of dentists with those of surgeons paved the way for the development of 2 new specialties: oral surgery and plastic surgery. In the 160 photographs that Dr Thomas Terry compiled, one sees evidence of the contribution of specially trained practitioners who restored a large degree of normality to the soldiers’ lives. Adding a poignant “human interest” depth to the technical reconstructive procedures, the letter from Sgt Hansen spotlights the accomplishments of those who treated maxillofacial injuries in World War I.
 
NYUCD "safety school" 2010 here,

I'm actually curious about dentistry's giving birth to both anesthesiology and plastic/reconstructive surgery. Can someone provide a short explanation on both connections so I can act badass around my cousins in med school during family gatherings this Christmas?

A german OMFS once told me that a large majority of the founding members of the first Plastic Surgery Society in England were double-qualified, reflecting plastic surgery's roots in dentistry.

From ASPSs website (http://www.plasticsurgery.org/about_asps/history/History.cfm?RenderForPrint=1):

The seeds of ASPS could be found in the establishment of another plastic surgery organization, the American Association of Oral Surgeons in 1921, which only accepted physicians with both medical and dental degrees and severely limited the number of members.

As to the OPs question on why all OMSs aren't DDS+MD: Not nearly all OMSs need the MD. I agree with Indresano in his "Cinical Controversies" article (JOMS 2006;64:1807-1810) where he points out that with most OMSs being single qualified, the speciality has been constantly kept on its toes. OMSs are over-achievers because they have to be. We have a very similar situation here in Denmark, where the scope of OMS has grown in the last 30 years from exodontia to full scope maxillofacial/craniofacial surgery excluding cancer surgery. All done by single qualified overachievers. They didn't need an MD, and I doubt the speciality would be any further if they'd all been double-qualified.
 
Modern Plastic Surgery was born during the WWI era... Among the most prominent surgeons running around in the trenches and the military hospitals were Dental and Oral Surgeons who were repairing facial injuries, especially broken mandibles.

Here is a great reference of Dentistry's Role, along with a few excerpts...
The Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume 61, Issue 8, Pages 943-950 (August 2003)

Maxillofacial surgery in world war I: the role of the dentists and surgeons


In the spring of 2001, the Louisiana State University School of Dentistry (LSUSD) library received a collection of World War I photographs and documents from a Baton Rouge dentist, who had received it from a patient. In the 160 photographs, pasted into a worn and brittle album, appear the mutilated faces of American soldiers who had sustained severe maxillofacial injuries from gunshots and shrapnel. These images, showing the progression of treatment and healing, reveal the skill and ingenuity of the American surgeons and dentists who not only saved the soldiers’ lives but also repaired and reconstructed their disfiguring wounds to restore some quality of life to the soldiers.

The collection originally belonged to Dr Thomas Mariner Terry (1889-1967), a New Orleans dentist who served in France during World War I. His niece, Margaret Shuffield, inherited the album and gave it to her dentist, Dr Kevin Hester, an alumnus of LSUSD, who then donated it to the dental school. The album has photographs and drawings of appliances and casts that were used in the patients’ treatment. In addition to the album, the collection includes 2 group photographs, a letter from one of Terry’s patients, and Terry’s discharge and military papers, which indicate that he served overseas from April 15, 1918, until February 27, 1919.

Terry graduated from the Chicago College of Dental Surgery in 1908 and practiced dentistry in downtown New Orleans on Canal Street. According to his obituary in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, he specialized in oral and plastic facial surgery.1 A life member of the American Dental Association, he was still listed in the association membership directory in 1967.

The letter in the collection from Sgt Leon Hansen, dated March 22, 1919, reveals significant details. Hansen indicates that he was Terry’s patient at a hospital in Vichy, France, and that he received further treatment at a hospital at Fort McHenry. He names several prominent surgeons whom he encountered at Vichy and then later at Fort McHenry, a US military hospital where complex reconstructive surgery was performed. Among the surgeons he mentions are Vilray P. Blair, who organized the effort to treat maxillofacial injuries in the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF), and Robert H. Ivy, his assistant.

The 15-volume set, The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War, which is in the LSUSD Library collection, details the activities of the Surgeon General’s Office (SGO) for the AEF and includes extensive information on the treatment of maxillofacial injuries.2 Volume 11, Surgery, has 3 chapters devoted to maxillofacial surgery; 2 of these chapters describe the treatment of maxillofacial injuries in the AEF in France, and the other chapter reviews cases of patients who were evacuated to US hospitals for reconstructive surgery. The latter describes procedures performed on a number of the patients in Terry’s album and includes photographs showing the final result of their multiple surgeries. Among these patients is Hansen, who was one of the most severely injured soldiers in the group.



When the United States entered the war in April 1917, Europe had already been on the battlefield for more than 3 years. By the time of the armistice on November 11, 1918, more than 30,500 American physicians and 4600 dental officers had been in service of the AEF.3 In addition to the basic dental care that dentists provided for soldiers in preparation for deployment overseas, they served as assistant medical officers at the front, caring for facial wounds, assisting with the debridement and closure of wounds, administering anesthetics, and sorting casualties.4 Each hospital in the AEF had dental staff and equipment.5

Because trench warfare dominated this war, the majority of serious wounds were to the head and neck. Steel helmets saved lives but increased the number of facial injuries from shells, bullets, and other projectile fragments ricocheting off the hard helmet surface.6 Of the 8,607 total facial injuries, 316 deaths (3.67%) resulted, which was lower than the average of 7.73% of deaths for all types of injuries.7 Two thirds of the soldiers with facial and jaw injuries returned to duty after treatment, whereas the remaining patients requiring reconstructive surgery were evacuated to hospitals in the United States for further treatment.

Two principles for the treatment of maxillofacial cases were established during this war. One was to combine the expertise of dentists in oral infections and injuries and jaw fractures with the experience of general surgeons and to assign them as teams to hospitals. A second principle was to initiate early treatment and to continue it systematically. Dentists’ and surgeons’ adherence to these principles guided the injured from the battlefield to the evacuation hospitals in the United States.8

Before World War I, no formal training programs existed for the treatment of maxillofacial injuries. Early in the war, British and French soldiers with extensive facial injuries wore masks to hide their deformities. Artists often painted the masks to appear as natural as possible. Although the SGO investigated the use of masks and even trained technicians to create them, they found that patients actually preferred plastic reconstruction.9 In July 1917, Surgeon General William C. Gorgas organized a Section of Plastic and Oral Surgery and appointed Vilray P. Blair, a surgeon from Washington University in St Louis, to be the senior consultant for maxillofacial surgery and chief of the section. He named Robert H. Ivy, a dental surgeon from Philadelphia, to be his assistant. Their first task was to train general surgeons and dentists to work together to treat maxillofacial wounds.

The SGO conducted short intensive courses ranging from 3 to 6 weeks from October 1917 through March 1918, at Washington University in St Louis, University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and Northwestern University in Chicago. More than 200 prominent surgeons and 800 dental school faculty members received letters from the SGO soliciting names of qualified students. At the end of each course, instructors reported to the SGO each student’s progress and ranking. About 86% of the 164 medical officers and 123 dental officers enrolled completed the course satisfactorily and were assigned in teams of one surgeon and one dentist to each unit overseas.8

The short courses brought dentists and surgeons together to share their knowledge and, according to Major Ivy, to “review the anatomy, the principles of plastic surgery, of splinting and the treatment of infections and sepsis of the face and jaw bones.” The intensive courses included lectures, dissection of cadavers, laboratory work, and seminars in which students presented abstracts of current literature. A total of 110 surgeons and dentists from private practice and local medical and dental schools taught in these courses.10 In 1918, the 3 civilian schools were replaced by a school of plastic and oral surgery at Camp Greenleaf, the medical officers’ training camp organized at Fort Oglethorpe in Georgia. The army conducted two 4-week sessions here in November and December.8, 11

The SGO prepared and distributed literature to enhance the training of dentists and surgeons. Publications in the library of the SGO were abstracted and reprinted in The Military Surgeon. In 1917, the SGO sponsored a revised edition of Blair’s 1913 textbook, Surgery and Diseases of the Mouth and Jaws. With new information on treating gunshot wounds of the face, this book was designated the official textbook of the Section of Plastic and Oral Surgery and placed in every hospital overseas and in the United States. In addition, the SGO, from 1918 to 1919, published abstracts of current articles on maxillofacial surgery in 2 of its journals, Review of War Surgery and Medicine and Survey of Head Surgery.8

By the time the United States entered the war, the Allies had already gained significant experience in surgery and reconstruction of maxillofacial cases. A unit of 20 surgeons and 20 dentists was sent to France in April 1918 and, for several months until they were needed in their own hospitals, observed the work of prominent surgeons and dentists in hospitals in England and France. Three American dentists, George B. Hayes and William S. Davenport of the American Ambulance Hospital in Neuilly, and Varaztad Kazanjian, chief dental officer in the First Harvard Unit with the British Expeditionary Forces (BEF), had volunteered to treat the maxillofacial injuries of French and British soldiers in France several years before the United States entered the war. Sir Harold Gillies, surgeon at Queen’s Hospital at Sidcup in Kent; Hyppolyte Morestin, plastic surgeon in the French Army in Paris; and Auguste Valadier, dentist in the BEF in Boulogne, also shared their expertise with the AEF officers.9 In their own hospitals, the team members had the advantage of combining techniques learned in their training at home with those observed in the French and British hospitals.12

Because the AEF was not able to send all of the specially trained surgeons and dentists overseas, the original plan to staff every mobile, evacuation, and base hospital with a maxillofacial team was replaced by the decision to send a dentist to each mobile and evacuation hospital to work with the general surgeon at that hospital on patients with jaw fractures.13 The 40 specially trained surgeons and dentists were assigned to each of 10 special oral units in the intermediate and base zones. On June 30, 1918, Base Hospital No. 115, designated a special head hospital, was mobilized for overseas service with 4 surgeons and 2 dentists with training in oral and plastic surgery and sent to Vichy, France.8

Blair, now a lieutenant colonel, was named the senior consultant for maxillofacial surgery, and Ivy, now a major, the local consultant for the advance section. A local consultant, assigned to each of 7 areas in France, supervised a certain number of hospitals in his area or section and was in turn supervised by the chief consultant.14 However, because surgeons were often sent to the front, leaving hospitals with inadequate personnel, consultants were frequently required to assist the dentists in the hospitals.12

Special records created during the treatment of maxillofacial injuries included photographs, drawings, plaster and wax models, and plaster masks. The surgeon general assigned artists, photographers, and wax modelers to the hospitals designated for maxillofacial treatment overseas and in the United States. Although records of completed cases were sent to the Army Medical Museum, few of the masks, models, and photographs remain today,15 but a number of photographs of appliances and drawings of appliances, signed by A. L. Fraser, are part of Terry’s collection at LSUSD (FIGURE 3, FIGURE 4.

Numerous dentists and surgeons who innovated the treatment of maxillofacial injuries during World War I also played a significant role in the development of their profession after the war. Sir Harold Gillies, from New Zealand, established the first plastic surgery unit in the British Army and originated many of the techniques later used by the AEF in the war, such as the tubed pedicle flap. Considered the founder of plastic surgery as well as a pioneer in cosmetic surgery, he is honored by plastic surgeons in the United States with the Harold Delf Gillies Award, which the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery presents annually for the best research paper.28

Vilray Blair, who was responsible for the infrastructure of the AEF maxillofacial service during the war, was later instrumental in the creation of plastic surgery as a separate specialty. He brought the team treatment of maxillofacial injuries to Walter Reed Hospital, where he formed a multidisciplinary team with prosthetic dentists, oral surgeons, otolaryngologists, ophthalmologists, and neurosurgeons. He was also one of the first non-oral surgeons elected to the American Association of Plastic Surgeons and was a founder of the American Board of Plastic Surgery in 1938.29

Robert Ivy, Blair’s assistant in the Section of Oral and Plastic Surgery and head of maxillofacial reconstruction at Walter Reed during World War I, earned both dental and medical degrees at the University of Pennsylvania. Among his accomplishments was the formation of the first multidisciplinary team for the treatment of cleft lip and palate in North America. Ivy continued to be active in both oral surgery and plastic surgery organizations throughout his long, distinguished career.29, 30

Varaztad Kazanjian, an American dentist from Harvard University Dental School, went to France in 1915 as chief dental officer for the First Harvard Unit. As the first person to treat fractured jaws and facial wounds in the British Expeditionary Forces, he was known as the “miracle man of the western front.” After the war, Kazanjian became professor of oral military surgery at Harvard University. In 1921 he completed medical school and in 1941 was appointed the first professor of plastic surgery at Harvard University.31

Oral surgery was relatively unformed as a dental specialty before the war. The need for treatment of maxillofacial trauma led to recognition of the unique skills of oral surgeons. Sir Kelsey Fry, the pioneer British oral surgeon, teamed with Gillies during the war to provide expertise on hard dental tissue to complement Gillies’ knowledge of soft tissue. Their collaboration continued for 40 years.32 After the war, Fry fought in vain until the beginning of World War II to gain recognition in Britain of oral surgeons as acknowledged specialists. In the United States, however, the American Society of Exodontists was formed at the 1918 annual session of the National Dental Association.33

Blair, Kazanjian, Gillies, Ivy, Fry, and other military dentists and surgeons published textbooks describing their experiences and innovative procedures during the war. Many of the principles and practices that these practitioners established during World War I were carried into World War II. For example, the 2 basic principles of teaming surgeons and dentists and instituting early and systematic treatment continued during the later war. The emphasis on treating maxillofacial patients at designated hospitals and evacuating them to the United States in supervised groups on specially equipped transports also proved successful in World War II.4

The LSUSD collection of photographs of World War I soldiers with maxillofacial injuries opens the door to a fascinating era in the history of medicine and dentistry. The search for historical information reveals a wealth of stories of soldiers who were devastated by these injuries, of dentists and surgeons who pioneered their treatment, and of the military operation that addressed the medical problem. During the war, the systematic treatment of maxillofacial injuries that teamed the unique skills of dentists with those of surgeons paved the way for the development of 2 new specialties: oral surgery and plastic surgery. In the 160 photographs that Dr Thomas Terry compiled, one sees evidence of the contribution of specially trained practitioners who restored a large degree of normality to the soldiers’ lives. Adding a poignant “human interest” depth to the technical reconstructive procedures, the letter from Sgt Hansen spotlights the accomplishments of those who treated maxillofacial injuries in World War I.


I remember seeing this display at the dental school......those were the good ole' days ......Pre-Katrina.....the days of Charity
 
Why haven't we fought HMO's like medicine? Because medicine has no choice but to fight and guess what? They are LOSING big time! You have any idea what a general surgeon gets paid for a lap choly?



Facts:

1) Public and govt consider non-dentistry healthcare a "right", not a privilege/luxury

2) Public and govt consider dentistry a "luxury/privilege" and not a right.

Thats why one sector has to deal with insurance and the other does not. Whens the last time you heard a senator speak on Capitol Hill that we need "universal dental coverage"? That happens every week with medicine.
 
Facts:

1) Public and govt consider non-dentistry healthcare a "right", not a privilege/luxury

2) Public and govt consider dentistry a "luxury/privilege" and not a right.

Thats why one sector has to deal with insurance and the other does not. Whens the last time you heard a senator speak on Capitol Hill that we need "universal dental coverage"? That happens every week with medicine.

The simple truth behind that is that people can live without their teeth... they've done so for thousands of years. It doesn't matter to the general public and to the government that proper dental care can improve quality of life, and in rare instances actually prevent life-threatening situations.

Its all a matter of priorities. And each and every one of us here would pick healthcare over dental care first. Then again each and everyone of us here also has the common sense to use a tooth brush and some floss. Like I said, people can live without teeth when push comes to shove...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Bill "has an enormous" Johnson here,


Iced "Ok you wankers trying to be like Gary Ruska by speaking in the third person, quit it, because there will only ever be one Gary Ruska on SDN" OMFS here, to implore you wankers to stop speaking in the third person like Gary Ruska, because there will only every be one Gary Ruska on the SDN...

PS... How come you gave me an infraction not 2 months ago for discussing the immense size of my genitalia, when in this very post you discuss the alleged size of your own genitalia. Sounds like a genitalia double standard to me...
 
Iced "Ok you wankers trying to be like Gary Ruska by speaking in the third person, quit it, because there will only ever be one Gary Ruska on SDN" OMFS here, to implore you wankers to stop speaking in the third person like Gary Ruska, because there will only every be one Gary Ruska on the SDN...

PS... How come you gave me an infraction not 2 months ago for discussing the immense size of my genitalia, when in this very post you discuss the alleged size of your own genitalia. Sounds like a genitalia double standard to me...

ok, lets get the periodontists in here with their probes and surgical microscopes to settle this matter. :laugh: :smuggrin: :smuggrin: :laugh:
 
The simple truth behind that is that people can live without their teeth... they've done so for thousands of years. It doesn't matter to the general public and to the government that proper dental care can improve quality of life, and in rare instances actually prevent life-threatening situations.

Its all a matter of priorities. And each and every one of us here would pick healthcare over dental care first. Then again each and everyone of us here also has the common sense to use a tooth brush and some floss. Like I said, people can live without teeth when push comes to shove...

I've heard that some studies have shown early loss of dentition associated with decreased life span. I looked for the specific paper online but have only seen other people refer to the the effects on their websites. It does make some sense though because the loss of teeth can make it more difficult to eat things high in fiber and protein. Eating foods that are easy to eat like vegetable that have been boiled so long they turn grey (the Kings Table buffet effect) can't be good for the body.
 
I've heard that some studies have shown early loss of dentition associated with decreased life span. I looked for the specific paper online but have only seen other people refer to the the effects on their websites. It does make some sense though because the loss of teeth can make it more difficult to eat things high in fiber and protein. Eating foods that are easy to eat like vegetable that have been boiled so long they turn grey (the Kings Table buffet effect) can't be good for the body.

That's a load of BS... You obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about. You need to read up on the social determinants of health ... You are erroneously assuming that the absence of teeth is the cause of these people's reduced lifespan, when in actuality it is more likely related to their lower socio-economic status, which in turn is linked with lower rates of education, poorer overall health indicators, higher rates of chronic disease and accidents, and by corollary, shorter life. The absence of teeth is similar. Poorer people have higher DMF scores, higher rates of complete edentulism, etc, related to those other determinants of health. You don't die quicker because you have bad teeth. You have bad teeth because you are less educated about maintaining your own health, have fewer resources to do so, have other factors at hand like obesity, diabetes, etc... Which in turn lead to shortened life, as you tend to die more frequently from heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, etc...

There ARE studies out there showing that the absence of teeth has little effect on health, whether it be a shortened dental arch or complete edentulism, because even if people have teeth to chew with, it doesn't mean they are going to make healthy food choices. There are plenty of demented 80 and 90 year olds in nursing homes getting along just fine gumming their food (with dentures in a cup in their bedside table).

And don't be too quick to believe the propaganda the perio plastic "surgeons" (Or pee pees, if you prefer) throw at you regarding periodontal disease causing heart disease. For similar reasons. The oral medicine guys out of UW did a nice analysis of that a few years ago, shooting that down.
 
And don't be too quick to believe the propaganda the perio plastic "surgeons" (Or pee pees, if you prefer) throw at you regarding periodontal disease causing heart disease. For similar reasons. The oral medicine guys out of UW did a nice analysis of that a few years ago, shooting that down.

Gary "Periodontists are confounders themselves" Ruska here,
Yet another perio theory disproven:

Michalowicz BS, Hodges JS, DiAngelis AJ, Lupo VR, Novak MJ, Ferguson JE, Buchanan W, Bofill J, Papapanou PN, Mitchell DA, Matseoane S, Tschida PA; OPT Study. Treatment of periodontal disease and the risk of preterm birth. N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 2;355(18):1885-94.

Conclusion: Treatment of periodontitis in pregnant women improves periodontal disease and is safe but does not significantly alter rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, or fetal growth restriction.

Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF. Preterm birth and periodontal disease. N Engl J Med. 2006 Nov 2;355(18):1925-7.

Conclusion: In the meantime, the findings of Michalowicz et al. do not support the provision of periodontal treatment in pregnancy for the purpose of reducing preterm birth.
 
Iced "Ok you wankers trying to be like Gary Ruska by speaking in the third person, quit it, because there will only ever be one Gary Ruska on SDN" OMFS here, to implore you wankers to stop speaking in the third person like Gary Ruska, because there will only every be one Gary Ruska on the SDN...

PS... How come you gave me an infraction not 2 months ago for discussing the immense size of my genitalia, when in this very post you discuss the alleged size of your own genitalia. Sounds like a genitalia double standard to me...
I didn't give you the infraction, but I'm guessing whoever did decided there's a difference between a quick double entendre and a 10-paragraph rant.
 
That's a load of BS... You obviously haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Calm down their Rambo. I don't think that I was trying to come off as an expert on the matter. Just stating what I had heard and that I saw a lot of references to it on the web and then explaining why it made sense. It still makes sense that it has effects because we already know that the diet can have far reaching effects on health. It can effect the cardiovascular system, its associated with Diabetes type II, and is also linked with cancer. So, if you lose your teeth and can't eat foods that are higher in fiber and protein it makes since that this will impact your health. . In order to understand what I'm saying, all you need to understand is that edentualism can alter the foods that you are able to eat and also that what we eat has an impact on our health. That's it, that's all you need to know. After that its as simple as 2+2.
You need to read up on the social determinants of health ...
Oh, O.k.. I'll get right on that.

You are erroneously assuming that the absence of teeth is the cause of these people's reduced lifespan, when in actuality it is more likely related to their lower socio-economic status, which in turn is linked with lower rates of education, poorer overall health indicators, higher rates of chronic disease and accidents, and by corollary, shorter life.
I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that I had heard that their was an ASSociation and that it made sense to me. On the other hand it does sound like you have already come to the conclusion that edentulism plays no role in the overall health and lifespan of a person.
The absence of teeth is similar. Poorer people have higher DMF scores, higher rates of complete edentulism, etc, related to those other determinants of health. You don't die quicker because you have bad teeth. You have bad teeth because you are less educated about maintaining your own health, have fewer resources to do so, have other factors at hand like obesity, diabetes, etc... Which in turn lead to shortened life, as you tend to die more frequently from heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, etc....
So your saying that all of these things are related but that the loss of teeth has no impact. It is obvious from the research that poorer less educated individuals have more health problems and also have higher DMF scores. We also know that while lifespan has increased more people have kept their teeth into adulthood and old age. The problem in either rejecting the impact of edentulism on health and lifespan or failing to reject its impact is that all of these factors are not mutually exclusive. In other words, you cannot independently verify that endetulism has no impact on lifespan of systemic health based on the studies that you quoted.

There ARE studies out there showing that the absence of teeth has little effect on health, whether it be a shortened dental arch or complete edentulism, because even if people have teeth to chew with, it doesn't mean they are going to make healthy food choices. There are plenty of demented 80 and 90 year olds in nursing homes getting along just fine gumming their food (with dentures in a cup in their bedside table).
What your saying doesn't make sense to me. How does what your saying show that edentualism has no impact. If you have a edentulated population that you've studied where you have no control over the foods that they have eaten, then it stands to reason that you cannot draw conclusions as definitive as "edentulism has no impact". In order to properly study this so that we could realistically draw truthful conclusions, you would need to do a couple of studies. One would need take 3 different populations over a long period of time ( basically a lifetime), a control population, a population that eats healthy food and a population that does not. All other factors would need to be held constant. This would allow us to determine the impact of healthy food choices on health and lifespan. A second study consisting of three groups, a control group and an edentuless group, and a dentate group would need to be followed over a long period of time to see what kind of foods these different groups eat and if a state of edentulism impacts are ability to eat certain foods. After that, it would seem obvious whither edentulism does or does not have an impact on health and lifespan.
 
now i feel like the dentures i made in dental school are out there somewhere saving lives one acrylic tooth at a time...:horns:
 
During these past months, after traveling across the country to interview at various Oral Surgery programs and learning about them in detail, I have come across an issue often spoken about but rarely seriously addressed.
Oral Surgery brings out the underlying problem that medicine does not respect the mouth and thus has neglected that body part as some auxillary appendage to be soley dealt by "dental".

The fact that not all surgery programs are 6 year bothers me. Why have we as a profession stayed so divided?? Dentistry seems to be the most cliquey profession out there. You have rivalries between perio and OS, between pedo and ortho, and endo with the GP's. then you have the OS guyz who claim that 6 is better or 4 is just as good if not better due to more "surgey experience".

What if all OS programs where 6 years? Why not???
One point i think is valid is because you dont need an MD degree to make the bucks. Wizzies alone can bring in HUGE cash but mandible fractures or orthognathic seems to be a charitable service relegated to academics. Why hasn't OMFS faught the HMO's like medicine?? Imgaine if Orthognathics and trauma braught in more $$$ than wizzies, I would guess that more guyz would do the 6 year with fellowships then.

Just random thought guyz, hopefully start some intelligent forum talk about OMFS. Or get flamed, either way i've killed time before my next patient.
peace

All programs should be 6 year. Not because it would make better surgeons (everyone pretty much agrees that's up to the individual, regardless of degree) but because it would make the specialty unified and more politically empowered.

Will it ever happen? Doubt it.
 
Regarding health and dental insurance, I project the trend will be tighter regulation of health care costs along with the off loading of company sponsored health insurance on to a quasi-government clearing house that enables private insurance companies to remain players in the game. Freed of huge health care costs, companies will then toss a bone to employees by offering them expanded dental insurance benefits.
 
Top