Here you have access to all original studies from the current year listed in chronological order. You may alternatively search for content by title.

VOLUME: 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009

Issue: 04/2014 - P. Gehrke - A. Boll
Gender aspects of implant dentistry: opportunities and career paths

Introduction: When the number of students and graduates in dentistry is analyzed, an increasing number of females can be noted. However, there is a gender disparity in implant dentistry practitioners, to the clear disadvantage of women.

Material and Method: A questionnaire was specially developed to determine the reasons for the gender imbalance of implant specialists in Germany, the motivation and demotivation of female implantologists and whether the decision to specialize in implant dentistry is gender-specific. The survey included 1,700 questionnaires distributed to 1,200 female and 500 male implantologists. The student’s t-test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis. A significance level of p0.05 was chosen.

Results: The response rate was 29.6% (n=504; 129 men; 365 women). The results of the survey identify a barrier-free, targeted implantological career orientation for male dentists and a “motivational mix” with regard to family and profession for female dentists, i.e. a “compatibility orientation”, resulting in the decision to pursue postgraduate training in implantology being much more difficult for female as compared to male dentists.

Conclusion: Taking into consideration all the results of the study, early integration of implant dentistry in the dental curriculum is an absolute requirement. Additionally, mentoring programs by successful female implantologists and supervisors who can provide counseling and coaching in terms of the mentee’s career planning, decisionmaking, conflicts and challenges in time management appear to be of the utmost importance.

Cite as: Boll A, Gehrke P: Gender aspects of implant dentistry: opportunities and career paths. Z Zahnärztl Implantol 2014;30:267–287

DOI 10.3238/ZZI.2014.0267–0287

» read full article