ArticleJournal of dental education2026
Resident Satisfaction With Orthodontic Training: Evaluating Experiences and Program.
Article in Journal of dental education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe satisfaction of orthodontic residents with their training programs is a key indicator of program effectiveness and serves as an important guide for the improvement of educational and clinical training programs. This survey was conducted to evaluate the perceived satisfaction of orthodontic residents with the current training in the United States. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study that utilized a 40-item structured survey to assess the satisfaction of orthodontic residents regarding their training programs. The survey was anonymous and assessed 27 various aspects of residency training.
resultsA total of 85 residents responded to the survey, yielding a response rate of less than 10%. The mean age was 29.94 ± 3.55 years; 60.7% were females. Overall, 78.8% of respondents were satisfied with their overall residency training, with the highest areas of satisfaction observed in clinical training (89.4%), clinical infrastructure (86.9%), access to patients to achieve clinical competency (88.2%), and interpersonal dynamics with co-residents (88.3%), part-time faculty (95.3%), full- time faculty (78.8%), and program director (78.8%). Residents were less satisfied with the organization, structure, and delivery of didactic content (47%), the allotted research time (50.6%), research mentorship (44.8%), and auxiliary staff support (38.9%). Females were less satisfied with their research preparation (p = 0.013), and residents in shorter programs were more satisfied with business and practice management preparation (p = 0.02).
conclusionsWhile most residents in this sample reported overall satisfaction with their training, notable gaps remain in the didactic, clinical, and research areas. Despite the low response rate, which limits the generalizability of the study, these findings underscore the need for ongoing program evaluation and suggest that CODA may benefit from directly incorporating resident feedback into the accreditation process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.