Minutes of the Meeting of the
UEMS Section of Oro-Maxillo-Facial Surgery
Date: Saturday 17th March 2007
Time: 14.30 – 6.45 pm
Location: Room Washington, Maison des Associations Internationales, Brussels
Secretary: Maurice Mommaerts, Chairman/Secretary
Minutes secretary: Jill McFarland
Treasurer: Blaise Kovacs, Treasurer
Representatives present (With voting right):
• Belgium: Blaise Kovacs
• Cyprus: Georges Pantelas
• Finland: Risto Kontio
• France: Joel Ferri
• Germany: Hans-Peter Ulrich
• Greece: Christos Martis
• Hungary: Gyorgy Szabo
• Italy: Giorgio Ianetti
• Portugal: Joao Pedro Marcelino
• Romania: Adrian Creanga
• Slovenia: Alesj Vesnaver
• Spain: Carlos Navarro Vila
• Switzerland: Klaus Grätz
• United Kingdom: Bob Woodwards
Observers present (Without voting right):
• Croatia: Miso Virag
• Denmark: Inger Bertram
• Germany: Wolfgang Busch, Joachim Muhling
• Portugal: Paulo Coelho, Ivo Furtado, Vasco Viana da Silva
• Spain: Jose Ignacio Salmeron
• Andre Santos Luis, PWG European Junior Doctors
• John Lowry
• Julio Acero
• Bernd Gattinger, Section President
• Bart Witsenberg, Section Vice-President
• Daniel Hrusak, Czech Republic
• Jean-Baptiste Kerbrat, France
• Elefhterios Varaiktasis, Greece
• Ron Koole, Netherlands
• Peter Stanko, Slovakia
• Per Skjelbred, Norway
• Joseph Schoenaers
• Bernard Maillet, UEMS, Secretary General UEMS
1. Welcome, introductions and approval of the minutes of the meeting of March 26th 2006
1.1. Maurice Mommaerts welcomed the members but was sad to report that the President,
Bernd Gattinger was unable to attend due to an accident and unfortunately the Vice
President, Bart Witsenburg was also unable to attend. He expressed his thanks once
again to Wolfgang Busch for the arrangements for the 2006 meeting in Hamburg. On
this occasion it was decided to take a low budget option using the MAI but the meeting
may well revert to a more prestigious site.
Maurice Mommaerts confirmed those who had been officially nominated by his or her
national medical association to represent the association within this Section.
Belgium: Blaise Kovacs
Cyprus: Georges Pantelas
Finland: Risto Kontio
France: Joel Ferri
Germany: Hans-Peter Ulrich
Hungary: Gyorgy Szabo
Italy: Giorgio Ianetti
Portugal: Joao Pedro Marcelino
Romania: Adrian Creanga
Slovenia: Alesj Vesnaver
Spain: Carlos Navarro Vila
Switzerland: Klaus Grätz
United Kingdom: Bob Woodwards
Altogether 13 members with voting rights
New members were welcomed:
Portugal – Ivo Furtado, Vasco Viana da Silva from the Stomatology Section
Romania – Adrian Creanga
Slovenia – Alesj Vesnaver
PWG Junior Doctors - Andre Santos Luis
Miso Virag from Croatia was welcomed as an observer on this occasion as contact with
the Medical Chambers had been unsuccessful but hopefully Croatia will be represented
officially at the next meeting.
An amendment to the order of the agenda was accepted.
Maurice Mommaerts was pleased to report that the certificates had been received but
reminded the members that the election is limited to two years and new certificates are
1.2. Approval of Minutes – Maurice Mommaerts reported that the minutes of the meeting
of March 26th, 2006 had been sent to the Secretary General for publication on the UEMS
website within 2-3 months as the regulations state but unfortunately the confidential
information contained within the White Book provided by EACMFS should not have been
included and were subsequently removed on request. Some amendments had already
been provided but further minor amendments were made following discussion as
Cyprus: no changes since the Hamburg meeting.
Denmark - NATIONAL ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE SPECIALITY:
DANISH ASSOCIATION of ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY.
EDUCATION PRIOR TO TRAINING IN THE SPECIALITY:
DOUBLE QUALIFICATION FULL MEDICAL AND FULL DENTAL TRAINING: NO
Single dental training: YES.
5 years dental education.
2 years general dental practice. Planning 1 year.
Length of Specialist training after basic Qualification: 5 years.
Medical training: 3 month internal medical training following medical students.
General surgery training: theoretical: 3 month following medical students.
IS TRAINING IN GENERAL SURGERY REQUIRED: NO
Number of specialists in private practice: ?
Number of Training Centers: 5
Number of trainees 12
Number of specialists in hospitals 42
Number of Oral and Maxillofacial Departments: 12
Population apr. 5 mill.
GOAL: 1 specialist/100.000 inhibitants
Finland – amendment to National Association representing the specialty – Finnish
Association of Maxillofacial Surgery.
Greece – Double qualification – 10 years
Hungary – Number of years for medicine – 6 years
Italy – number of years for medicine – 6 years
Portugal – amendment to National Association representing the specialty - Portuguese
Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
Number of years of stomatology in training for maxillofacial surgery – 2 years. No of
trainees – 11. Number of OMFS Surgeons in Portugal 92
Spain – population is 45,000.000 Number of OMFS is 600
The minutes were approved following the aforementioned amendments.
EWTD – Maillet-Greenhalgh-meeting May 2006 - Multi Disciplinary Joint Commission
on Pain Medicine - Change of name of Section of Otolaryngology – Letter from
2.1. Maillet-Greenhalgh – Problems arose concerning the European Working Time Directive
Questionnaire and the Federation of Surgical Specialists regarding a questionnaire
which was supposed to have been reviewed but the deadline had been too short. The
questionnaire had been sent by the Council but had not been approved by the
Federation. The Federation subsequently did not approve the results as the questions
were deemed to be biased. The Council were sent two sets of results – one set in reply
to the questions as documented and another with answers to the questions as they
should have been laid down. No conclusions have been made and the discussion
continues. In particular, the President of the Neurosurgery Section had expressed
concerns over the handling of the questionnaire. A meeting of the Federation of
Surgical Specialists will take place on the 12th April at the Royal College of Surgeons
and Bob Woodwards kindly agreed to attend as representative of the Section. It is
hoped therefore that further information will be forthcoming.
Hans-Peter Ulrich reported that no decision has been made and it would be on the
agenda in Bratislava in November. There had been controversial discussion regarding
the voting rights of the three groups.
Maurice Mommaerts felt that UEMS gave its support too rapidly without consulting the
2.2. Letter (2/2/07) from Prof Knape, Utrecht, Netherlands.
This relates to a proposal for a new a Multi-Disciplinary Joint Commission on Pain-
Medicine to which the Section had already expressed an interest since Bernd Gattinger
had suggested involvement.
Hans-Peter Ulrich confirmed that not only was he in favour but his OMFS colleagues in
Germany would support involvement. Giorgi Iannetti felt involvement would be
beneficial. Gyorgy Szabo personally supported involvement and Joel Ferri
It was therefore agreed to take part in the formation of this new committee.
Maurice Mommaerts asked for a volunteer to represent the Section. Unfortunately no
name came forward and it was therefore agreed that any papers should be sent to
Maurice Mommaerts and possibly ask Bart Witsenburg to attend the first meeting in 6
2.3. Change of name of Section of Otolarnygology
A letter had been received on the 14th February proposing a change of name to UEMS
Specialist Section of Head and Neck Surgery with an invitation to attend a Council
meeting on the 10th March. However, the meeting was cancelled and so the Section of
Otolarnygology was informed that it would be discussed at the OMFS Section meeting.
Maurice Mommaerts reported that he had contacted Robert Peiffer who advised that
the proposition should be strongly resisted and assistance sought from other specialities
working in the head and neck area. Bob Woodwards reported that it was on the
agenda for the meeting at the Royal College of Surgeons on the 12th April. The members
were asked to assist in the preparation of a draft position paper which would be
prepared by Maurice Mommaerts and sent to the Secretary General and President and
for use at any future meetings
A letter had been received from Joseph Schoenaers which had been sent to him by a
colleague, Associate Prof Svechtarov on the 28th February.
The Bulgarian Association for OMFS makes enormous efforts to implement the specialty OMFS
according to EACMFS standards and rules. However, the Bulgarian Ministry of Health
implemented soon a certain, quite different specialty - “jaw surgery”. We are deeply concerned
with the possible disastrous effect on education, clinical practice and mutual recognition of
diplomas. In few weeks we will organize a meeting between Rectors of all Bulgarian Medical
Universities and the Ministry of Health, and will present the EACMFS and UEMS concept of OMFS
For this purpose, I would kindly ask you to send me a formal statement of EACMFS for
Standards of training for OMFS, and some details about EACMFS position that “National
programmes may include up to 2 years of either relevant surgical training or may include
up to 2 years of the relevant 2nd degree”.
Maurice Mommaerts noted that the letter had been sent by a colleague with a DMD
and not a MD.
John Lowry informed the Section that EACMFS had also received a similar letter. He
explained that in Bulgaria the dental practitioners undertake oral surgery and the
proposed specialty of jaw surgery would be based on the dental degree with 4 years
training. The specialty of oral and maxillofacial surgery is currently moving towards
double qualification which historically is largely based on a dental qualification. He
stated that there is concern that the newly immerging specialty of oral and maxillofacial
surgery could be adversely affected by a move towards jaw surgery which would very
much have a dento-alveolar component and is clearly a move to try to take out a high
volume of work from the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery and also to be more
economic in terms of education.
Wolfgang Busch felt that regardless of whether the colleague is a dental or medical
doctor there is a wish for double qualification and the Section should provide support by
sending the European Guidelines for Specialty Training in Oro-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.
It was therefore agreed to provide support by the Section as did John Lowry on behalf
3. EACCME Agreement – Maurice Mommaerts confirmed that the Section had signed
the agreement with UEMS and a program of meetings had been received. He reported
that the EACMFS Barcelona meeting had to be approved retrospectively. He therefore
wished to remind the members to complete the forms via the UEMS website if planning
meetings/courses in order to enhance exposure of the event and colleagues would then
be more confident to attend meeting with confirmed accreditation. Maurice Mommaerts
notified members that a fee is payable for the evaluation of an event for EACCME. A
fee is also payable to UEMS by the Organising Committee depending on the number of
4. Approval of EBOMFS decisions – Workgroup Potts
Risto Kontio gave a presentation of the EBOMFS.
All decisions of the Board of Oro-Maxillo-Facial Surgery were approved.
Risto Kontio reported that he was unable to attend the Glasgow Symposium held on the
9/2/07. However, he informed the Section that the aim was harmonisation, control of
standards and implementation within all specialties. All sections had been asked to
complete a questionnaire covering basic facts of the assessment -eg number of parts,
frequency, number of candidates and success rate. There were 9 specialties 6 of which
were from the Surgical Section. A ten minute presentation was required but in his
absence Risto Kontio forwarded the following main objectives:
- To increase the quality and objectivity of Assessment
- To harmonize the Assessment in order to have common base between specialties
- Increase the status of the RQ Assessment
• Exam should be objective and transparent
• Should be at equal level horizontally and vertically
• Exam should be developed in collaboration with main European
Medical Training Centres
- Suggested that a working group should be established to enhance the status and
harmonisation of the Assessment
Following the Glasgow Symposium, Dr Potts had informed Risto Kontio that a declaration
had been produced stating the position on the examination system. The groups would
meet again in Brussels in June under the title of Council for European Specialist Medical
Unanimous agreement had been reached on the following:
• The role of European Board Examinations is complementary to National
Examinations where they exist
• Countries which do not have their own examination are encouraged to consider
using the appropriate European Board Examinations
• European Board Examinations are regarded as a quality mark for safe
independent practice at the end of specialist training
• All European Board Examinations shall publish both a syllabus and minimum
requirements for examination
• Candidates for examination should be certified specialists or have been trained
according to the relevant syllabus
• A trainee may sit the final part of a European Board Examination provided they
have fulfilled the requirements of their national training body where one exists or
when approaching the end of the training
• Candidates of any nationality shall be eligible to sit the European Board
• Candidates who pass a European Board Examination and who are certified
specialists in an EU/UEMS member state may call themselves “Fellow of the
European Board”. Other successful candidates will be “European Board
• Trade sponsorship should not be used to subsidise the examination
• It is proposed to establish a Council for European Specialist Medical
Examinations (CESME) as an advisory body to the UEMS and its sections
Risto Kontio confirmed in reply to Maurice Mommaerts that someone not residing in
Europe can sit the examination although pointed out that the documentation is still in draft
format but since this comes under the umbrella of UEMS it is clearly based on medical
Maurice Mommaerts queried the point regarding a candidate being a recognised
specialist for 3 years (not 2) before the RQ assessment but again Risto Kontio pointed
out that the documentation is draft.
Wolfgang Busch queried the possibility of migration of Doctors under the Glasgow
proposals and felt this should be stressed plus continued involvement was also essential.
John Lowry agreed with Wolfgang Busch as the European Board Examinations had
been questioned in the past since they did not necessarily act as a licence for mutual
recognition and expressed the need for this to be firmly written.
5. Report of the BaMaMa working group/Harmonisation pertaining to basic
5.1 Report of BaMaMa
Wolfgang Busch presented a report on behalf of Joseph Schoenaers who had
given a comprehensive report of BaMa (Bologna Process) last year in Hamburg.
He reported that the Bologna process should be introduced to all universities but there
had been resistance to the application principles to medicine and dentistry. The
recommendations of a number of universities had shown that statutory requirements for
training would not be fulfilled by the application of Bachelor/Master principles. However it
has been in installed in Zurich and Leuven. As a result a work group was set up which
agreed that for oro-maxillo-facial surgery it would be difficult to define a training
programme complying with the Bologna process but that a framework should be
prepared. Such a framework would require three basic rules to be applied. The Bachelor
phase of education and training should provide a common trunk for medicine and
dentistry. There would be a necessity for triple Master degrees to allow for completion of
undergraduate training in medicine and dentistry and specialist training in oro-maxillo-
facial training. Training in oro-maxillofacial surgery should be conceived in such a way
that it is open to individuals regardless of whether they have a foundation of medical
bachelor and master or dental bachelor and master.
Julio Acero congratulated the working group.
John Lowry also congratulated the working group but shared concerns about the
practicality of the common trunk since experiences in the UK have been disappointing.
Gyzorgy Szabo stated that Hungary would be happy to follow the proposal.
Carlos Navarro Vila expressed his change of view to the belief that double qualification
is the way forward.
Hans Peter Ulrich felt that costs were becoming a Government issue and the specialty
could be taken over by other closely related specialties without the double degree in
5.2 Harmonisation pertaining to basic qualifications
Wolfgang Busch stated that it is essential to speak with one voice. The length of
training should be reduced to an appropriate number of years provided there is no
lowering in standards. Dentistry is an integral part of the speciality and imparts
necessary clinical knowledge which guarantees independence of the specialty.
Education and Training in 12 to 13 years time
Dental and medical education |
( Common trunk ) | Plus dental
Medical education 3 2
Y 2 +3 =
Dental education e + e
Diploma in Medicine s Diploma in Dentistry
General surgery ½ year
Training in OMFS 4 Years
Diploma of OMFS
Higher Oncologic Surgery
Regional plastic Surgery
Cleft lip and palate Surgery
Education and Training of OMFS in 11 to 12 years time
Dental and medical education | Plus dental
( Common trunk ) | technical skills
Medical education 3 years
Diploma in Medicine
General surgery 1 / 2 year
Training in OMFS
Diploma in OMFS and Dentistry
Higher Oncologic Surgery
Super specialization Regional plastic Surgery 1 year
Cleft lip and palate Surgery
Section of OMFS working group BaMaMa
Common trunk Inter Semester
Bachelor 3 Years Tech. skills training
Master in Medicine Master in Dentistry
3 Years 2 Years
Master in OMFS
Diploma in OMFS
Super Higher Oncologic Surgery
Specialization Regional plastic Surgery
1Year Cleft lip and palate Surgery
6. Amendments to Chapter 6
6.1 Definition and Scope of the Specialty:
Approval was given to list the scope in alphabetical order.
6.2 General Aspects of Training:
Proposal to change wording:
2.2. The duration of core specialty training for oro-maxillo-facial surgery should
not be less than 5 years after basic qualifications(s), education and training in
Agreed to postpone decision until outcome of BaMaMa
Proposal to change wording:
2.3 In accordance with the constitution of the European scientific association
(EACMFS), basic professional education ideally requires qualification in dentistry
in addition to a registrable medical degree. Individual national programmes may
include 1 year of training in general surgery or related surgical specialties but
there should be not less than four years of training in oro-maxill0facial surgery.
7 votes for, 4 votes against
The inclusion of a limited period of training in anaesthesiology was discussed but
it was felt there would be confusion. The most important point is the use of the
wording may include.
7. Problems related to the speciality in the different countries
Austria . no delegate present
Belgium – the change of name from Stomatology to OMFS and the change in
length of the training are on the 2007 programme of the professional and
Croatia – no change
Cyprus – no change
Czech republic – no delegate present
Denmark – Inger Bertram reported there is a need for more resident places
Estonia, no delegate present
Finland – Risto Kontio reported no change
France – Joel Ferri reported 2 years general surgery changes to 1 yr
General surgery + 1 year free
The official organisation representing the specialty is Federation of
Stomatologie et Chirurgie maxillo-faciale
Germany – Hans- Peter Ulrich reported no change
Greece – Christos Martis reported a change - double qualification 10 yrs
Maurice Mommaerts was requested to draft a letter to the commission
regarding listing in dental/medical directives.
Hungary – dramatic changes had taken place from 1/4/07 – of 70.000 hospital
beds, 15.000 will no longer be financed by health-insurance authorities.
Maxillofacial surgery will be affected by this change. A fundamental problem is
the resident training in maxillofacial surgery which will shrink from approx 12 to 1-
2. Finance provided by the State will cease for the 2 years in dental faculty and
to be self-funded
Italy – Giorgio Iannetti reported no changes but more schools are requireed
Latvia – no delegate present
Lithuania – no delegate present
Malta – no delegate present
Norway – no delegate present
Netherlands – no delegate present
Poland – no delegate present
Portugal – Joao Pedro Marcelino reported a change in title to Portuguese
Association for Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
Number of trainees 11, Number of OMFS Surgeons 92
Two new centres
Romania – Adrian Creanga reported no change but mentioned problems related
to the length of training which is discouraging trainees
Slovakia – no delegate present
Slovenia – Alesj Vesnaver reported that the number of trainees is decreasing
Oral Surgery 4 years dental degree
4 MFS/5 OS, one training centre
Spain – Carlos Navarro Vila reported no changes
Sweden – no delegate present
Switzerland – no change
Turkey – no delegate present
United Kingdom – no change
8. Problems related to the Specialty of Stomatology – Board of Stomatology
Giorgio Iannetti stated that stomatology no longer exists in Italy.
Dr C Navarro Vila stated that the stomatology school closed 7 years ago in Spain.
Dr J Ferri stated that stomatology is still available but undertaken by only 2-3 candidates
Dr. Ivo Furtado read a report on the status of stomatology in Portugal. The Portuguese
Ministry of health opened 5 vacancies for stomatology trainees. In Portugal, stomatology
is a surgical speciality requiring 4 years of training of which 2 years of dentistry. There
are 600 stomatologists in Portugal dealing with odontology. The new vision is to create a
hinge between dental medicine and maxillofacial surgery.
Maurice Mommaerts felt that the problems were best dealt with at a local level within the
Blaise Kovacs reminded the Section that the individual countries contribute differently
according to the new formula. Two new delegates would be invoiced – Slovenia 50
Euros, Romania 150 Euros
The 2006 accounts that the treasurer produced were approved.
10 Election of Secretary of Section OMFS
Wolfgang Busch thanked Maurice Mommaerts for his excellent work for the last 4 years.
There being no other candidates forthcoming, it was unanimously agreed to appoint
The times to elect new presidents and secretaries for Section and Board are due as
President of the Section: 2005(6), 2009 and 2013
Secretary of the Section: 2007, 2011, and 2015
President of the Board: 2007, 2011, and 2015
Secretary of the Board: 2009 (withdrawal Peter Ward-Booth), 2011, and 2015
11 Any other business
Maurice Mommaerts confirmed
o the need to provide support for Bulgaria
o change of title, change of duration of training for Belgium required letter stating
Blaise Kovacs asked the members of the Section not to arrange travel times during the
course of the meeting and to allocate the complete day. Reverting to a 2 day meeting
was discussed but majority ruled for a one day meeting.
12 Date for meeting 2008 – 15 March 2008 although if this coincides with UEMS
Council – change to 8 March 2008