Sir, I am writing to you as a recently qualified and aspiring dentist. Although I am in my early years, I find myself, like many of my other dental colleagues, at a career crossroads. With so many specialities and sub-specialities on offer as a dentist, it can often be confusing what to choose. I hear from many dentists that you don't need to specialise to excel within a sub-speciality. However, I hear from just as many that to excel and reach the pinnacle as a dentist, you should aim to specialise.

Does a dentist on the specialist register hold greater value and worth than one that isn't? Alternatively, will having an MSc, which has been obtained over a two-year period part time, put you in just as much demand as a dentist who has spent the last three years, working full time, on the specialist register?

With so many different courses on offer, it can often prove difficult to decide which one to go for. Is there any real measurable benefit with a self-funded, three-year course over a part-time, 12-month one in the same field? Will I be in more demand with one over another?

For many out there, including myself, the financial aspect may ultimately determine which one to go for. For example, ideally, in a self-funded, three-year, full-time course in endodontics, you must have some financial savings to reduce the likelihood of running out of funds come the 2nd or 3rd year. Compare this with a 12-month, part-time course in endodontics, which can be much more affordable, with far less impingement on the full time working hours of a dentist.

These decisions aren't made lightly and like many dentists out there that are facing the same issue as me, particularly when it can involve life changing sums of money, can it be seen as a gamble worth taking? By deciding to go for an MSc over becoming a specialist practitioner, could I be potentially eliminating a large majority of patients out there that would rather be treated by a specialist?