(“ . . . main objective has been and continues to be to achievethe highest standards of excellence in clinical orthodontics viacertification”; “ . . . vision is to welcome as many education-ally qualified orthodontists into the process as possible”).Could it be that the board’s objective and the vision are notbilaterally achievable? Our graduates can do it; we just needto make it valuable enough that they will do it.

I do not want this to sound negative. I certainly havecherished my certification and will continue to believe in andsupport the ABO. Those chosen to be ABO directors havealways been of the highest caliber. I know this must be adilemma for them, and, in the big picture, certification isgood, and promoting it is right. The bigger question might be:if this is good and right, and we have the privilege of havingdentistry’s best and brightest in our specialty, why won’t mostorthodontists “go the distance”? I do not know, but I thinkthat they don’t feel the need. We need to better define theneed.

Respectfully submitted by a regular old orthodontist still outthere in the trenches (and with our great specialty and itswonderful legacy at heart).

Dale V. RhoneyLake Oswego, Ore

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:6-70889-5406/$30.00Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists.doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.024

Gateway offer lowers standardsI can appreciate the American Board of Orthodontics’

concern that only about a quarter of the members of theAmerican Association of Orthodontists is board-certified. Ialso believe that most orthodontists desire to practice at thehighest standards of excellence, and many actually do. Irecently achieved board certification, and the process wasinvaluable to improving my clinical skills. I would recom-mend it to all orthodontists. The process was stressful atmoments, time consuming, and expensive but still worth it.The most valuable part was Phase III, in which a candidatepresents treated cases, and diplomates give their feedback.

I do have a concern with the new Gateway Offer (RioloML, Owens SE Jr, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE,Greco PM, et al. A change in the certification process by theAmerican Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod DentofacialOrthop 2005;127:278-281) in which an orthodontist canreceive an ABO certificate for 5 years for a fee of $1880without showing a single case. I realize that the board wantsmore orthodontists to become certified, but this seems to belowering the standard instead of raising it and would becontrary to the ABO mission. How will the public distinguishbetween a diplomate who has completed Phase III and onewho has not? It will be interesting to see how many Gatewaydiplomates complete Phase III and whether this will make a

difference in the number of orthodontists who become certi-fied after the 5-year period. I believe an orthodontist whowants to practice at the highest standard of excellence doesn’tneed a shortcut.

Gregory K. RossLakeland, Minn

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:70889-5406/$30.00Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists.doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.023

Make ABO exam more user-friendlyIt is interesting to me that, after 75 years of ABO

existence, the directors are now so concerned with thepercentage of orthodontists who attain certification (RioloML, Owens SE, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, GrecoPM, et al. A change in the certification process by theAmerican Board of Orthodontics 2005;127:278-81).

For 75 years, the numbers have stayed fairly constant.Why would the directors think that, by changing the certifi-cation process, those numbers would change? Even if therewere a temporary increase by allowing certification withoutPhase III, the recertification process would drop the numbersback to the same level. Then instead of having board-eligibleand board-certified orthodontists, we would have board-certified (first time) and board-recertified orthodontists.Changing the name does not change the beast. In the longterm, I believe the results will be even worse. With the ordealof recertification required every 10 years, there will likely bean even greater loss of recertified doctors and probably fewerrecertifying the first time because of the 10-year limit.

Remember, when comparing our board with medical-specialty boards, there is a big difference. The hospitals andclinics where those doctors practice require board certifica-tion to use those facilities. We have our own clinics, so thereis no monetary motivation for certification.

The present system might not be perfect, and I applaudthe board for trying to improve it, but I suggest spending moretime making the examination more user-friendly and less timeon bureaucratic restructuring.

Finally, a closing thought: if board members think thatfuture orthodontists require recertification, let those boardmembers be the first in line to be recertified. It never ceasesto amaze me how much legislation comes from those towhom the legislation will not apply. If this is a “home run,”then, in my opinion, the batters are using steroids.

J. Courtney GormanMarion, Ind

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:70889-5406/$30.00Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists.doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.021

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsVolume 128, Number 1

Readers’ forum 7