Open Access
Editorial
Numéro
J Oral Med Oral Surg
Volume 26, Numéro 1, 2020
Numéro d'article E1
Nombre de pages 3
Section Éditorial / Editorial
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mbcb/2020005
Publié en ligne 10 mars 2020

An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field.

Niels Bohr (1885–1962)

The exponential growth in medical knowledge − 16 millions citations in the MEDLINE® database in 2007 and more than 30 millions in 2020–along with technological advances in both diagnostics and therapeutics have been essential drivers of medical specialization throughout the past decades [1]. Specialization is a logical consequence of the evolution of Medicine (and Surgery), but it is probable that overspecialization may carry significant drawbacks [2,3]. In surgery for instance, early (and too important) specialization may lead to poor surgical training and the inability to change to a new subspecialty or to address more “general” surgical problems. Furthermore, overspecialization can become an invitation to medical overconsumption, considering that there is always room for another (more specialized) medical opinion [2].

The field of Dental Medicine has not been forgotten in the era of medical specialization and a number of practitioners opt for a practice limited to a specific subspecialty (endodontics, periodontics, prosthodontics, pedodontics, aesthetic dentistry, etc.). Whereas having the possibility of specialist consult and management is obviously very fruitful for patients, one can wonder whether too much specialization can lead to poor patient outcome when the clinical problem falls out of both the generalist's and the specialist's scopes of expertise.

Furthermore, overspecialization can lead to an interesting paradox, namely the inability to diagnose and treat a condition that clearly falls within the specialist's expected scope of practice and expertise because of a too-focused (and thus too-limited) practice. It is as if the overspecialist can't see the forest for the trees.

There are numerous examples from the various subspecialties of Dental Medicine that can be drawn to illustrate such paradox [4,5], be it a periodontist unfamiliar with gingival lichen planus presenting as refractory bacterial gingivitis or an endodontist unfamiliar with the radiographic presentation of periapical osseous dysplasia, just to name two. Illustrative examples from the author's personal practice can be found in Table I.

Table I

Non-exhaustive examples of misdiagnosed pathologies that fell within the specialist's expected field of expertise.

As clinicians and teachers, we must ask ourselves: How can we mitigate such an unfortunate paradox?

Two −simple but potent– ideas come to mind:

  • Encourage versatility: A popular saying states that “The specialist is a man who knows more and more about less and less, whereas the generalist is a man who knows less and less about more and more”. If such a saying has some veracity, a middle ground could be found in the form of a “versatilist” i.e. a man who knows more and more about more and more (although not knowing everything about everything) as illustrated in Figure 1.

  • Promote and practice collaborative interspecialty training: Each subspecialty has its own specific expertise to offer to other subspecialties and to the general dental practice. This can present as continuing professional development courses for practitioners (examples of which can be found in Table II) or specific lectures, articles or books focusing on improving a specific part of the specialist's existent field of expertise (e.g. improving the training of periodontists in gingival “dermatology” [6]).

thumbnail Fig. 1

Graphical illustration of the differences in expertise and breadth of knowledge between a generalist (e.g. general dental practitioner), a versatilist (e.g. oral surgeon) and a specialist (e.g. implantologist).

Table II

Suggested themes for Continuing Professional Development courses in several subspecialties.

All in all, although having a specialized practice is a rewarding professional endeavor that can only be encouraged, one should always keep in mind and try to mitigate the risk and paradox of overspecialization.

Conflict of interest

Author declared no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Forest CB. A typology of specialists's clinical roles. Arch Intern Med 2009;169:1062–1068. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Villet R. Overspecialization in surgery. Chirurgie 1991;117: 208–211. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Loefler IJ. The drawbacks of overspecialisation. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999;44:11–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Moreau N, Boucher Y. Encyclopédie Médico-Chirurgicale Médecine Buccale 2020 [Article 28-290-C-10]. [Google Scholar]
  5. Daviet V, Ejeil AL, Gossiome C, Salmon B, Moreau N. Differentiating early stage florid osseous dysplasia from periapical lesions: a radiological-based diagnostic algorithm. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:161. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Dridi SM, Ejeil AL, Gaultier F, Meyer J. La gencive pathologique − de l'enfant à l'adulte. Diagnostics et thérapeutiques. Paris: Espace ID 2013 [Google Scholar]

© The authors, 2020

Licence Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

All Tables

Table I

Non-exhaustive examples of misdiagnosed pathologies that fell within the specialist's expected field of expertise.

Table II

Suggested themes for Continuing Professional Development courses in several subspecialties.

All Figures

thumbnail Fig. 1

Graphical illustration of the differences in expertise and breadth of knowledge between a generalist (e.g. general dental practitioner), a versatilist (e.g. oral surgeon) and a specialist (e.g. implantologist).

In the text

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.