The standards governing orthodontic residency education help define what the profession expects of those entering it. When those standards are reviewed or revised, the details matter: faculty oversight, clinical supervision, facilities, competencies, assessment, and the qualifications of those evaluating programs.
Equally important is whose expertise informs that process.
From Specialty Input to Adopted Standards
In 2017, AAO convened an eight-member committee to undertake a comprehensive review of the CODA standards for orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. Chaired by Dr. Steven Siegel, the group brought together representatives from the AAO Council on Education, the Society of Educators, the American Board of Orthodontics, and the Board of Trustees.
Over a comprehensive review that spanned several years, the committee sought input from orthodontic educators and leaders, examined the existing standards in depth, and developed recommendations for CODA’s formal review process. That process gave orthodontists a coordinated way to bring specialty expertise into the discussion as the standards were being reconsidered.
When updated standards took effect in 2022, a number of requirements had changed, including the establishment of minimum faculty-to-resident ratios and orthodontist clinical faculty coverage. Programs were required to provide adequate clinical space, including a clinic chair for each resident assigned to a clinical session. Required competencies were expanded, clinical outcomes assessment was strengthened, and additional training requirements were established for accreditation site visitors.
Why Orthodontic Input Matters
AAO’s role was not to determine accreditation standards. CODA has its own formal process and responsibility for dental accreditation. AAO’s role was to ensure the orthodontic specialty was able to contribute informed, organized input to that process.
A single orthodontist, residency program, or practice cannot easily assemble a cross-section of specialty expertise, coordinate recommendations, and remain engaged throughout a multi-year standards review. Meaningful participation at that level requires both orthodontists willing to contribute their expertise and an organization capable of bringing those perspectives together over time.
Much of that work happens well outside the view of everyday practice. There may be no immediate member download, program registration, or obvious benefit attached to it. Yet the outcome can influence residency programs, the preparation of future colleagues, and ultimately the standards the specialty carries forward.
Protecting What Comes Next
Orthodontics depends on more than maintaining the standards that already exist. It requires experienced orthodontists willing to continue examining those standards as education, technology, clinical practice, and patient needs evolve.
When decisions affecting orthodontic education are under consideration, orthodontists need to be part of the conversation, supported by the continuity and organizational capacity to bring their expertise forward thoughtfully and credibly.
Standards do not protect themselves. Protecting them requires orthodontists to be part of the conversation, and a strong professional organization capable of keeping the specialty’s expertise at the table.
