Digital Workflows in Orthodontic Education: A Structural Necessity, Not an Optional Enhancement

ABSTRACT

Cone‐beam computed tomography and intraoral scanning have become routine in postgraduate orthodontic training, yet the curricula built around them have not kept pace with what that data makes possible. This perspective argues that the gap is not simply technology outpacing education, a pattern long documented across medicine, but a narrower and under‐recognized problem: individualized, patient‐specific data is already being collected at diagnosis, treatment planning, and outcome assessment, while teaching in each of these domains continues to default to population‐normative references. We examine this pattern across three domains that span the clinical cycle of a case: two‐dimensional cephalometric analysis versus direct three‐dimensional CBCT interpretation in diagnosis; population‐derived visualized treatment objectives versus patient‐specific digital simulation in planning; and conventional cephalometric superimposition versus voxel‐based three‐dimensional superimposition in outcome assessment. We weigh this shift against genuine risks, including overreliance on automated outputs, the limits of individualized precision, and unequal access to digital infrastructure, and argue that these risks call for deliberate curricular design rather than for abandoning the shift itself. We close with four concrete curricular commitments: defining patient‐specific digital competencies, sequencing exposure progressively across training levels, evolving assessment to capture reasoning rather than recall, and embedding these expectations within accreditation frameworks. Postgraduate orthodontic education does not need to wait for new technology; it needs to catch up to the data it already has.