See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276394560

Oral and maxillofacial surgery: Perception of its scope among the medical
fraternity and general public

Article · January 2015

DOI: 10.4103/2278-9588.151898

CITATIONS READS

2 901

5 authors, including:

Ashwant Kumar Vadepally Uday KIRAN Uppada

Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery
11 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Anmol Agarwal
Institute of Dental Studies and Technologies, Modinagar, Uttar Pradesh, India
29 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Case Reprot View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Uday KIRAN Uppada on 20 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

[Downloaded free from http://www.craniomaxillary.com on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, IP: 124.123.246.4]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this
journal

Original Article

Oral and maxillofacial surgery: Perception of

its scope among the medical fraternity and
general public
Ashwant Kumar Vadepally, Ramen Sinha, Uday Kiran Uppada, Rama Krishna Reddy BV, Anmol Agarwal
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Sri Sai College of Dental Surgery, Opposite Siva Sagar, Kothrepally,
Vikarabad, Telangana, India

ABSTRACT
Purpose: The study was intended to evaluate the existing perceptions about the specialty of oral and maxillofacial
surgery (OMFS) and to promote its awareness among the medical professionals and the general public.
Materials and Methods: A  questionnaire listing ten clinical situations was designed. It was given randomly to
100 medical professionals and 500 members of the general public. They were asked to choose the appropriate
specialty that they would prefer to approach for undergoing treatment of certain specific conditions related to the
head and neck regions.
Results: The results were compiled and tabulated and the data analysed. The current status pertaining to the
perception about the specialty was not promising. Only 30% of the medical professionals and 7% of the general
public had ever approached an oral and maxillofacial surgeon (OMS) directly.
Conclusion: The specialty of OMFS is critical for addressing several medical and surgical issues. There is a need to
promote and increase awareness regarding a large spectrum of work that is being carried out by OMS’s in order to
enhance better patient care and outcome.
Keywords: Awareness, general public, medical doctors, oral and maxillofacial surgeon, oral and maxillofacial surgery

INTRODUCTION life by providing better function and aesthetics. In the

The term ‘oral and maxillofacial surgery’ (OMFS)
evolves from the anatomical region with
which it deals. Contrary to common belief, the
work performed by an oral and maxillofacial
surgeon (OMS) does not start and end with teeth.
It expands to incorporate procedures that are life
saving, as well as those that enhance the quality of
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:
Website:
www.craniomaxillary.com
DOI:
10.4103/2278-9588.151898
Indian scenario, OMFS as a specialty till date is far
removed in the thoughts of medical professionals
and the general public.[1] It is well documented that
medical professionals and the general public in
various other countries across the globe too have
a low awareness pertaining to OMFS.[2‑5]
Our medical and dental colleagues need to have
a basic knowledge of the specialty to make informed
decisions regarding patient management.[6] Equally,
the general public would benefit from knowing what
OMFS can offer so that they can request appropriate
referrals.[3] The present study undertook such an
endeavour to analyse several aspects regarding
awareness among medical professionals and the

Correspondence to:
Dr. Ashwant Kumar Vadepally, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Opposite Siva Sagar, Kothrepally, Vikarabad - 501 101, Telangana, India.
E‑mail: drashwantkumar@gmail.com

Journal of Cranio-Maxillary Diseases / Vol 4 / Issue 1 / January 2015 21

[Downloaded free from http://www.craniomaxillary.com on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, IP: 124.123.246.4]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this
journal

Vadepally, et al.: Perception of oral and maxillofacial surgery

general public about this specialty in Hyderabad,
mimicking the Indian scenario.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted in and around
Hyderabad Metropolitan City, Telangana, India,
to assess the current awareness levels of the
specialty in the Indian society. A questionnaire
comprising 10 clinical situations was designed
and given to two groups of people by hand
and personal interview as delineated in Table 1.
Group ‑ I comprised of 100 doctors belonging to
various allied specialties and Group ‑ II comprised
of 500 members of the general public with a
minimum qualification of graduation, working
in different fields such as education, banking,
multinational companies, government, business,
and engineering. Graduation level education was
the sole inclusion criterion.
The subjects were asked to mark a tick () against
the specialty they thought was the most appropriate
to deal with the different clinical situations.
Demographic data relating to age and gender were
also collected. The respondents in both the groups
were chosen randomly.
RESULTS
A total number of 5000 (10 × 500) replies from
general public and 1000 (10 × 100) replies from
medical professionals for different clinical situations
presented in the questionnaire, were obtained and
are depicted in Tables 2 and 3. The age range
was similar in both the groups. The mean ages
for medical professionals and general public were
38 and 36 years, respectively. The sex distribution
showed that men were the predominant gender in
both medical professionals (68%) and the general
public (62%).
The results were unexpected. There was a
general lack of awareness in both the groups
about the specialty pertaining to the spectrum of
work that is being carried out by OMS’s. Only 30%
of medical professionals and 7% of the general
public had, in the past, approached OMS’s for

Table 1: Questionnaire form (please tick the specialty which you think is appropriate to treat the problem)
Problem/chief complaint Orthopedic ENT Plastic Oral and General General Others I don’t
surgeon surgeon maxilla‑facial dentist surgeon including family know
surgeon physician
Wisdom tooth removal
Facial cut injuries
Facial bone fractures
Jaw deformities
(micrognathia, retrognathia etc)
Cleft lip and palate
(split lip and palate)
Oral cancer and oral submucous
fibrosis (trismus and stiff joint)
Facial abscess (space infections)
Sinus problems
TMJ disorders
(TMJ ankylosis, dislocations etc)
Aesthetic surgery (rhinoplasty,
face lift, etc)
For example
Mode of Orthopedic Oral and Ophthalmologist ENT surgeon General surgeon Others
problem surgeon maxillofacial surgeon
Fracture of leg 
Loss of vision 
Hearing deficits 
ENT=Ear, Nose and Throat, TMJ=Temporomandibular joint

22 Journal of Cranio-Maxillary Diseases / Vol 4 / Issue 1 / January 2015

[Downloaded free from http://www.craniomaxillary.com on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, IP: 124.123.246.4]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this
journal

Vadepally, et al.: Perception of oral and maxillofacial surgery

Table 2: Response to the questionnaire by the medical professionals (100)

Problem/chief complaint Orthopaedic ENT Plastic Oral and General General Others I don’t
surgeon surgeon maxillofacial dentist surgeon including family know
surgeon physician
Wisdom tooth removal 0 0 0 05 95 0 0 ‑
Facial cut injuries 0 0 53 0 0 47 0 ‑
Facial bone fractures 22 0 28 14 11 16 9 ‑
Facial deformities 31 0 33 03 06 17 10 ‑
(micrognathia, retrognathia etc)
Cleft lip and palate 0 0 78 02 03 07 10 ‑
Oral cancer and oral 0 02 0 0 0 13 85 ‑
submucous fibrosis
Facial abscess (space infections) 0 04 09 0 0 87 0 ‑
Sinus problems 0 97 0 0 0 01 02 ‑
TMJ disorders 0 0 0 06 01 0 93 ‑
(TMJ ankylosis, dislocations etc)
Aesthetic surgery 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 ‑
(rhinoplasty, face lift, etc)
ENT=Ear, Nose and Throat, TMJ=Temporomandibular joint

Table 3: Response to the questionnaire by the general public (500)

Problem/chief complaint Orthopaedic ENT Plastic Oral and General General Others I don’t
surgeon surgeon maxilla‑facial dentist surgeon including family know
surgeon physician
Wisdom tooth removal 0 0 0 57 403 13 27 ‑
Facial cut injuries 0 0 242 0 0 248 56 ‑
Facial bone fractures 133 0 96 58 90 112 11 ‑
Facial deformities 97 0 129 62 82 95 ‑ 35
(micrognathia, retrognathia etc)
Cleft lip and palate 0 58 261 24 43 109 ‑ 42
Oral cancer and oral 0 0 0 33 107 237 123 ‑
submucous fibrosis
Facial abscess (space infections) 0 23 95 63 85 158 ‑ 76
Sinus problems 0 367 0 0 0 89 44 ‑
TMJ disorders 191 0 0 42 103 134 ‑ 30
(TMJ ankylosis, dislocations etc)
Aesthetic surgery 0 0 454 0 0 68 20 ‑
(rhinoplasty, face lift, etc)
ENT=Ear, Nose and Throat, TMJ=Temporomandibular joint

problems related to specific clinical situations Statistical analysis

described in Table 4. Percentage of people opting
for an OMS and other specialties for a particular
problem is shown in Figure 1. Responses from
both the groups as to who from other specialties
is preferred are depicted in Table 5. Our study
revealed that the general public actually does not
know as to who they should approach for clinical
scenarios like dentofacial deformities (35%), cleft
lip and palate (42%), facial abscess (76%) and
temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorders (30%)
respectively.
The statistical analysis was done using SPSS
version 14. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically
significant. Comparison of categorical variables
was done using Chi‑square test.
DISCUSSION
Oral and maxillofacial surgery is an interesting and
fascinating field that forms a bridge between medical
and dental professionals to resolve many clinical
issues related to head and neck regions.[7] Oral and

Journal of Cranio-Maxillary Diseases / Vol 4 / Issue 1 / January 2015 23

[Downloaded free from http://www.craniomaxillary.com on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, IP: 124.123.246.4]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this
journal

Vadepally, et al.: Perception of oral and maxillofacial surgery

Table 4: Number of general public and medical doctors who preferred an OMS
Problem or chief complaint General public number (%) Medical professionals number (%) P value
Wisdom tooth removal 57 (11.4) 05 (5) 0.05
Facial cut injuries 0 0 ‑
Facial bone fractures 58 (11.6) 14 (14) >0.05
Facial deformities (micrognathia, retrognathia etc) 62 (12.4) 03 (3) 0.006
Cleft lip and palate 24 (4.8) 02 (2) >0.05
Oral cancer and oral submucous fibrosis 33 (6.6) 0 0.008
Facial abscess (space infections) 63 (12.6) 0 <0.001
Sinus problems 0 0 ‑
TMJ disorders (TMJ ankylosis, dislocations etc) 42 (8.4) 06 (6) >0.05
Aesthetic surgery (rhinoplasty, face lift, etc) 0 0 ‑
Total 339 (6.9) 30 (30) <0.05
TMJ=Temporomandibular joint, OMS=Oral and maxillofacial surgeon

Table 5: Number of general public and medical doctors who preferred other specialties to treat the problem
Problem or chief complaint General public Number Medical Number
(percentage) professionals (percentage)
Wisdom tooth removal General dentist 403 (80.6) General dentist 95
Facial cut injuries General surgeon 248 (49.6) Plastic surgeon 53
Facial bone fractures Orthopaedic 133 (26.6) Plastic surgeon 28
Facial deformities (micrognathia, retrognathia etc) Plastic surgeon 129 (25.8) Plastic surgeon 33
Cleft lip and palate Plastic surgeon 261 (52.2) Plastic surgeon 78
Oral cancer and oral submucous fibrosis General Surgeon 237 (47.4) Oncosurgeon 85
Facial abscess (space infections) General surgeon 158 (31.6) General surgeon 87
Sinus problems ENT Surgeon 367 (73.4) ENT surgeon 97
TMJ disorders (TMJ ankylosis, dislocations etc) Orthopaedic 191 (38.2) Family physician 93
Aesthetic surgery (rhinoplasty, face lift etc) Plastic surgeon 453 (90.6) Plastic surgeon 100
Total 2580 (51.6) 749 (75)
ENT=Ear, Nose and Throat, TMJ=Temporomandibular joint

a b
Figure 1: (a and b) Percentage of people opting for an Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon and other specialties for a particular problem

maxillofacial surgeons are commonly known as
‘dentists’ in the medical fraternity and as ‘surgeons’
in the dental fraternity.[8] Despite tremendous increase
in awareness regarding personal health in India, the
specialty of OMFS is still in its infancy.
It was observed that our medical colleagues and
the general public lack awareness about the OMFS
specialty and also the spectrum of work that it covers
as seen in Figure 1a and b. This was consistent with
previously published data. Other studies indicated
an extremely poor recognition of the specialty by the
general public.[1,4] The results of the present study
showed only 7% of the general public and 30%
of medical professionals approached an OMS for
the clinical situations shown in Table 4. This was in
accordance with the findings of Lau[9] who reported
a perception of OMS in about 11.5% of the general

24 Journal of Cranio-Maxillary Diseases / Vol 4 / Issue 1 / January 2015

[Downloaded free from http://www.craniomaxillary.com on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, IP: 124.123.246.4]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this
journal
public of Hong Kong. In England, during the
1990’s, it was found that 79% of the general public
had never heard of OMFS.[2] However, a decade
later, a survey performed and compared with the
previous one found that the recognition of OMFS
among the general public and health professionals
had increased from 21 to 34%.[3] In contrast,
Hunter et al.[4] showed that 72% of the public knew
about the specialty in Boston, USA.
In the Indian scenario, 51.6% of the general
public and 75% of medical professionals
approach doctors belonging to various allied
medical specialties for conditions described in the
questionnaire as seen in Table 5. In real life, it
differs from individual to individual as to who refers
these cases. A dental practitioner would refer mostly
to an OMS, while a medical practitioner would do
it differently.[9] This may be due to the fact that the
recognition of the specialty of OMFS and all that
it can offer is still unfamiliar to a large number of
medical professionals here. An informed healthcare
professional will be able to direct a patient to the
correct specialist.[7] OMS seldom gets a direct
patient attention.
With the formation of the American Association
of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons in 1918, the
spectrum of the specialty has continued to evolve[7]
and broaden from oral surgery to craniofacial
surgery. This specialty currently provides efficient
services pertaining to maxillofacial region, which
includes facial skeletal fractures, cleft lip and palate,
oral and facial cancers with reconstruction using
local flaps and microvascular free tissue transfer,
salivary gland diseases, TMJ disorders and surgical
management of complex prosthodontic problems,
dental and skeletal deformities of the face, and
aesthetic surgery such as face lift and rhinoplasty.[2,9]
Though the internal growth and development of
the specialty has continued to flourish over the last
90 years, comprehension of the same by our medical
and dental colleagues as well as the general public
has not been concurrent.[7] The same is the picture
here in Hyderabad, India. Awareness about the
scope of OMFS would lead to efficient delivery of
quality services.[3]
To reflect from a few examples, surgical removal
of wisdom tooth is a routinely performed procedure
Journal of Cranio-Maxillary Diseases / Vol 4 / Issue 1 / January 2015
Vadepally, et al.: Perception of oral and maxillofacial surgery
by an OMS. It was observed that 80.6% of the
general public and 95% of medical professionals
would seek the help of a general dentist as shown in
Table 5. This may be due to the fact that the majority
of them are unaware that the ideal operating
surgeon is OMS who can deliver flawless treatment
with their trained and skillful hands.
Pertaining to maxillofacial trauma, an OMS
would treat fractures of the jaw and facial cut
injuries with ease in addition to delivering a scarless
treatment, since he can approach most of the facial
skeleton intraorally. Patients with facial trauma and
lacerations, once stabilized in Casualty, ought to be
channelized to an OMS for handling fractures of the
facial skeleton.[3] The present survey demonstrated
that in most circumstances such patients, after being
stabilized are treated by other medical professionals.
Only 11.6% of the general public and 14%
medical professionals preferred an OMS. In such
an instance, the question arises as to who else in
the medical specialty is better in understanding the
biomechanics of the facial skeleton and the concept
of occlusion other than an OMS. In contrast, Rocha
et al.[6] and Jarosz et al.[7] stated that in Brazil and
in New Jersey, respectively, patients are most likely
referred to OMS for such conditions.
Clinical entities like facial asymmetries are
a great challenge to any operating surgeon.
Orthognathic surgical procedures may be needed
in correcting such dentofacial deformities. This
requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes
orthodontists, periodontists, and prosthodontists.
An OMS would live up to the realistic expectations
of the patient by giving a desired aesthetic look,
simultaneously securing the occlusion. Of great
concern is the undeniable fact that most of the
general public (35%) are unaware of this fact. In this
regard, 25% of the general public and 33% of the
medical professionals preferred plastic surgeons.
Similar findings were observed by Ifeacho et al.[3]
Correcting cleft lip, cleft palate, and associated
craniofacial syndrome requires a multidisciplinary
approach and is a staged protocol. Apart from
correcting the condition, rectifying the dentofacial
deformity during the later stages of life in such
patients is essential. In this study, it was seen that
only 4.8% of the general public and 3% of medical
25
[Downloaded free from http://www.craniomaxillary.com on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, IP: 124.123.246.4]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this
journal
Vadepally, et al.: Perception of oral and maxillofacial surgery
professionals opted for OMS. OMS plays a pivotal
role in handling such clinical scenarios. Cleft lip and
palate services are largely provided by OMFS.[3]
In this study, it was seen that for facial infections,
sinus problems, and aesthetic surgery both the
groups opted for other specialties i.e. general
surgeon, Ear, Nose, and Throat (ENT) surgeon, and
plastic surgeon as reflected in Table 5. This may be
due to the fact that for these conditions all three
specialties were also responsible for treatment in the
past. Similar situation prevails with respect to oral
cancer where most of the general public (47.4%)
preferred a general surgeon whereas medical
professionals (85%) opted for an oncosurgeon.
Problems related to the TMJ are another
challenge in maxillofacial surgery. Unfortunately,
our survey revealed that most of the medical
doctors do not know where to refer the patients
with TMJ problems. This may be due to the fact that
TMJ involves many associated structures, whose
symptoms are indistinct in terms of location. Most of
the patients come in with a history of seeking opinion
from different doctors without the problem being
addressed.[9] Thirty percent of the general public are
actually confused about such problems and do not
understand who to approach. In this context, the
term TMJ seems to be the biggest obstacle. A term
such as mouth joint, like knee joint or elbow joint,
can be contemplated for better understanding by
the general public.
Laskin et al.[10] evaluated knowledge about 12
different specialties to determine whether such
unfamiliarity was true only for OMFS or whether it
occurs with other specialties. The result of this study
revealed that name recognition was not a problem
only for OMFS. Although this does not mean that
no effort should be made to inform the public
about the spectrum of work that an OMF surgeon
performs, it does indicate that name alone can
never be completely descriptive.[11‑13]
The authors are of the opinion that the name
‘Orofacial surgery’ may be suggested for this
fascinating specialty so that it shall promote awareness
among both the groups. Similar name was suggested
by Ameerally et al.[2] due to the long and complicated
latin name. He stated that a change to a much simpler
26 Journal of Cranio-Maxillary Diseases / Vol 4 / Issue 1 / January 2015
name would facilitate better education of both the
groups. However, any change from the current name
was rejected by the American Association of OMFS.
One of the concerns over changing the name was
that another specialty of dentistry or medicine might
adopt the abandoned name.[14]
The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgeons of India (AOMSI) observe February 13th as
the day of OMFS to commemorate its first meeting
held on this date in 1969. The objective of this
initiative is to bring about increased awareness in
the general public about the advances the specialty
has made. This we feel needs to be followed and
expanded.
The present study, nevertheless, has shed
light on what the perception is of the domain of
the OMS among medical professionals and the
general public. Procedural awareness mentioned
within the questionnaire was significantly still
weak. The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgeons should take a leading role to arouse
public awareness concerning the specialty, by audit,
publications, or organizing public talks or camps
regularly.[2,9] Educational institutions are the leading
lights to promote awareness. This would have an
effect on the dynamics of the entire system, not only
to the patients or the public, but also to the doctors
who provide the treatment.
The survey was performed in and around
Hyderabad and, therefore, the results might not be
applicable elsewhere. Regional variations exist, and
surgeons themselves are responsible for educating
their own community and referral circles about
the scope of their practice, which will depend on
training, experience, and areas of interest. It is clear
that greater progress needs to be made to change
the perception of the medical professionals as well
as the general public, if the specialty of OMFS is to
be practiced to its full potential.[4,15,16]
CONCLUSION
Despite advances in OMFS in our country, there
are still a large number of patients with untreated
head and neck conditions and diseases present
since birth who report to OMS only at an advanced
stage owing to lack of awareness, ignorance, or
[Downloaded free from http://www.craniomaxillary.com on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, IP: 124.123.246.4]  ||  Click here to download free Android application for this
journal
improper referral. The specialty of OMFS is critical
for addressing injuries, deformities, and diseases of
the maxillofacial region. There is a need to promote
and increase awareness regarding the wide spectrum
of work being performed by OMS.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Gireesha
Reddy, Dr. Abhishek, Dr. Revanth Kumar for their kind
support
REFERENCES
1. Rangarajan S, Kaltman S, Rangarajan T, Lopez E. The general
public’s recognition and perception of oral and maxillofacial
surgery. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Radiol Endod
2008;106:15.
2. Ameerally P, Fordyce AM, Martin IC. So you think they know
what we do? The public and professional perception of oral and
maxillofacial surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1994;32:142‑5.
3. Ifeacho SN, Malhi GK, James G. Perception by the public and
medical profession of oral and maxillofacial surgery-has it
changed after 10 years? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;43:289‑93.
4. Hunter MJ, Rubeiz T, Rose L. Recognition of the scope of
oral and maxillofacial surgery by the public and health care
professionals. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:1227‑33.
5. Subhashraj K, Subramaniam B. Awareness of the specialty of
oral and maxillofacial surgery among health care professional
in Pondicherry, India. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:2330‑4.
6. Rocha NS, Laureano Filho JR, Silva ED, Almeida RC. Perception
of oral maxillofacial surgery by health‑care professionals. Int
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;37:41‑6.
7. Jarosz KF, Ziccardi VB, Aziz SR, Sue‑Jiang S. Dental student
perceptions of oral and maxillofacial surgery as a specialty.
Journal of Cranio-Maxillary Diseases / Vol 4 / Issue 1 / January 2015
View publication stats
Vadepally, et al.: Perception of oral and maxillofacial surgery
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71:965‑73.
8. Reddy K, Adalarasan S, Mohan S, Sreenivasan P, Thangavelu A.
Are people aware of oral and maxillofacial surgery in India?
J Maxillofac Oral Surg 2011;10:185‑9.
9. Lau SL. Do you think they know about us? Oral and maxillofacial
surgery in Hong Kong. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2014;1:11.
10. Laskin DM, Ellis JA Jr, Best AM. Public recognition of specialty
designations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;60:1182‑5.
11. McArdle PJ, Whitnall M. The referral practice of general
medical practitioners to the surgical specialties: Implications
for the future. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;34:394‑9.
12. Spina AM, Smith TA, Marciani RD, Marshall EO. A survey of
resident selection procedures in oral maxillofacial surgery.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:660‑7.
13. Szuster FS, Nastri AL, Goss AN, Spencer AJ. Survey of Australian
and New Zealand Oral Maxillofacial Surgery trainees and
recent specialists-education and experience. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2000;29:305‑8.
14. Parnes EI. Discussion; recognition of the scope of oral
and maxillofacial surgery by the public and health care
professionals. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996;54:1233.
15. Brennan DS, Spencer AJ, Singh KA, Teusner DN, Goss AN.
Practice activity trends among Oral and Maxillofacial surgeons
in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res 2004;4:37.
16. Dodson TB, Guralnick WC, Donoff RB, Kaban LB. Massachusetts
general hospital/harvard medical school MD oral maxillofacial
surgery program: A 30‑year review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg
2004;62:62‑5.
How to cite this article: Vadepally AK, Sinha R, Uppada UK, Rama Krishna
Reddy BV, Agarwal A. Oral and maxillofacial surgery: Perception of its
scope among the medical fraternity and general public. J Cranio Max Dis
2015;4:21-7.
Source of Support: Nil. Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Submission: July 07, 2014, Acceptance: Sep 17, 2014
27