Sir, the majority of the dental profession will have had an opportunity to read the GDC recommendations regarding additional qualifications (AQs). They have arisen from the clearly identifiable anomalies that exist in the registration procedures and more importantly in how the general public interprets the possession of an AQ. 'The more the better' is the majority experience thereby leaving scope for misleading and potential safety breaches.

What is the GDC to do? Doubtless, the GDC Education Committee has many difficult meetings ahead and pressure from the Fitness to Practise Policy Committee will play a major role in the final policy outcome decision. We at the British Association of Oral Implantology (BSOI) recognise the difficulties ahead and applaud the GDC in its attempts to ensure the public does not fall foul of the vagaries of advertising embellished by lists of letters designed to impress and coerce.

It is at this time that representative associations within dentistry need to take the lead in the provision of suggestions and ideas that will alleviate the current impasse and begin to push forward solutions that could maintain the academic hunger of dentists within the postgraduate arena and ensure such awards are recognised for their relevance to the practice of clinical dentistry.

The BSOI has drawn together a group of clinicians with expertise in the postgraduate clinical educational field and is dedicated to providing dentists with guidance required to satisfy the educational and clinical demands in postgraduate implant dentistry, to suit the requirements of all clinicians, particularly those in primary care. BSOI embraces all those involved in postgraduate training and has pledged to try and ensure uniformity in quality by collaboration between various postgraduate institutions, particularly those within the primary care sector. This collaboration could be the key to providing solutions for the GDC.

We feel that the GDC in conjunction with representative educational bodies could identify those standards required for award of an AQ within a particular field, which would be subject to regular review and revalidation. Those in the business of providing education would be made to produce these standards and report their agreed findings to the GDC. This is not a decision one association is capable of making; all representative parties should play a role. It would also be the duty of those representatives to police the education, training and assessment procedures.

Accordingly, the AQ attached to each clinical individual would have a level of recognition currently only attached to the BDS, would satisfy the GDC's desire to ensure that registers and information contained within IS of clear benefit to the public and would satisfy the requirement that any AQ identified with an individual had been rigorously quality assured. This is an opportunity and we recommend the GDC turns to the clinical arena for a solution to this dilemma.