Message Boards
Today's Active Topics Today's Active Cases Browse Forum Categories My Recent Activity My Messages Private Groups My Marked Threads My Subscriptions
Today's Active Images Today's Active Polls Most Active Topics Global Townie Map Advanced Message Board Search Message Board Terms of Use

A Voice in the Arena: A Warm Challenge to KOLs... by Dr. Chad Foster

Start Discussion More by this author (49)
A Voice in the Arena: A Warm Challenge to KOLs...

by Chad Foster, DDS, MS, editorial director

I completely understand why most orthodontists do not make the effort to share clinical work on the different online platforms. It is quite an investment of time and energy to capture and edit good records, formulate a well-thought-out post and then attempt to respond to the variety of comments. It is quite exceptional when orthodontists do share their work in this way on online forums regardless of the specific technique or philosophy. While not at all a prerequisite to sharing, most orthodontists are not seeking that type of exposure, aren’t necessarily incentivized to offer their opinions and haven’t actively positioned themselves as clinical thought leaders within their peer group.

But some have. Some do seek exposure of their clinical work. Some are incentivized to offer opinions and do actively position themselves as clinical thought leaders. These include orthodontists who are key opinion leaders (KOLs) for orthodontic companies. Let me be clear that there is absolutely nothing wrong with receiving financial compensation for the investment of time that is put into these roles. Often the financial compensation is quite minimal compared to that investment of time. Many who are in these positions are some of the very best and brightest clinical minds in our profession and I would assume the majority are not primarily motivated by financial gain.

I would describe KOLs as “professional sharers.” As such they share in a variety of ways, such as lectures, webinars, and podcasts. With respect to those that elect to occupy these roles, I continue to be puzzled by the lack of sharing on the largest and most open-source platforms available to them. If the goal of their sharing was to reach as many orthodontists as possible, there is no better stage than the online platforms. If the goal of their sharing was to advance or evolve their thoughts in an “uncloseted” and “echo chamber-free” environment where audience engagement is maximized, there is no better stage than the online platforms.

Additionally, these professional sharers have ready-made material available to easily share. Unlike most orthodontists, who lack the time and motivation to craft teaching content, professional sharers have a large amount of content in the form of presentations. It would require minimal effort to convert one small part into a post. An entire course or presentation does not need to be “given away”—a single slide, pearl, or one patient case can make an outstanding post with great learning value. So then, what is often the main deterrent to the professional sharer?


Criticism is the key
In my opinion, the main reason for this lack of sharing is simple. It comes down to whether the professional sharer has the courage of their convictions to truly stand and deliver in the face of direct and open critique. The majority, despite their public position, want nothing at all to do with that kind of perceived vulnerability. But that is unfortunate, because criticism is the key. Criticism is both the deterrent to the sharer and has without a doubt, when accepted, the greatest ability to advance the most true and valuable aspects of their work. As a professional sharer myself and someone who posts clinical work regularly, I will tell you that there is much less risk of critique when delivering a lecture, composing a webinar or speaking on a podcast than when sharing clinical work on one of the online forums. It’s not even remotely close. In a lecture, webinar, or podcast, the sharer has total control of the pace, the narrative, and the exposure of the records. Certain questionable or more vulnerable aspects of the argument/narrative can be easily minimized, sped through, or left out completely. This occurs routinely even in the very best lectures at the highest levels.


The other half
However, when clinical work is shared online, the sharer and the audience play a much more interactive game. The audience now has unlimited exposure to the work and the words. The audience has time to formulate more thought-provoking feedback, questions, and critiques. They can ask for clarification or request additional records. The original content offered by the sharer is truly only half of the value of the post. The other half (and arguably the better half) is the back-and-forth discussion between the sharer and the commenters regarding that work. This is where ideas are questioned, explored, and ultimately refined and iterated. It’s where veracity is distilled from the narrative. Though sometimes uncomfortable, it is the open-air arena of our specialty and the fast track for the unbiased evolution of thought, even when participants agree to disagree. It’s where ego, bravado, “stage presence,” and charisma are stripped bare in favor of the words and work standing on their own merit. It’s easy to understand why that might not be a desirable place for many professional sharers.

It is true that there are some bad actors within the audiences of these posts. There are those that abuse their commentary in demeaning or personal ways. However, in truth, they are a small minority of those that comment and should not at all be confused or conflated with those that offer insightful critique. These bad actors will always exist, and their presence ultimately does nothing to diminish the work shared or the productive dialogues in the comment sections. For a professional sharer to cite these few voices as the reason for their lack of sharing on these platforms is a very weak argument. Those bad actors do not represent a legitimate reason not to share and no real person of conviction should view them as such. If the ego of the professional sharer cannot tolerate respectful critique, and yes, weather the occasional rogue unprofessional comment, it calls into question the real merit of the words and work.


The best will stand and deliver
My warm challenge is simple. If you have chosen to assume the role of a key opinion leader, I believe you should feel some responsibility to share your work on what is inarguably the most open-source platform available to do so. My intent in saying this is not to be contentious; I greatly admire and respect many of those that this invitation goes out to! My purpose is to encourage the sharing of more clinical work which will benefit the learning and advancement of all. It is my good faith belief that the very best of us in those roles will indeed stand and deliver. 


Orthotown makes it easy to share
an opinion with your peers!

We encourage verified members of the Orthotown community to share their thoughts, suggestions and opinions in the Comments section under this column—and every other article! If you’re not a verified member yet, click here to sign up and begin the process.

Orthotown Magazine
November 2025
Orthotown Magazine November 2025 Read Current Issue Read Archived Issues
Sponsors
Townie® Poll
What format of CE do you prefer?
  
Site Menu
Message Boards Magazine Continuing Education Podcasts Blogs Classifieds News Events Townie® Poll Ebooks Townie Choice Awards
Company Info
Contact Us Advertise With Us Howard Farran DDS, MBA Policies and Agreements
Site Help
The Orthotown Team, Farran Media Support
Phone: +1-480-445-9710
Email: support@orthotown.com
©2025 Orthotown, a division of Farran Media • All Rights Reserved
9633 S. 48th Street Suite 200 • Phoenix, AZ 85044 • Phone:+1-480-598-0001 • Fax:+1-480-598-3450