Implications of the American Academy of Pedodontics Future of Dentistry report for pedodontic educators.

my reactions to activities in several areas which will affect our teaching of dentistry for children and handicapped individuals. Specifically, I have been asked to identify the impact of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD)* Future of Dentistry for Children Committee report on pedodontic education. My comments are influenced by discussions at this meeting with pediatric dentists with officials in the ADA, and with many of our orthodontic colleagues. Dr. Vincent N. Liberto, 1981-82 president of the AAPD, received a request from the ADA for reactions to the work of the Future of Dentistry Committee. A studied reaction required establishing our own Committee on the Future of Dentistry for Children. Since the committee activities would overlap our two terms of office, Dr. Liberto and I shared the responsibility for appointing and giving the charge to this committee. Dr. Charles H. Rosenbaum was chairman of the committee. Initially, there was some feeling that the ADA Future of Dentistry report would lay the groundwork for the elimination of the specialty of pedodontics; other specialties felt: even more threatened. These reactions were fueled by consideration of changes in the ADA requirements for Recognition of Specialty Areas in dentistry. The guidelines being considered would no longer permit recognition of specialties in areas that did not provide direct care to patients. All of the specialties rallied behind the specialties of oral pathology and public health dentistry which appeared most susceptible to this change. That joint support was successful in softening the change; even if the ADA no longer recognized oral pathology or public health dentistry, these specialties would con-