The delivery of orthodontic care in New Zealand. Part II: Analysis of a census of dentists

Part I of this study reported the level and distribution of the supply of specialist orthodontic services in New Zealand. This paper focuses on the amount and variety of orthodontic services supplied by dentists. A questionnaire sent to all dentists in New Zealand sought information on the amount and type of orthodontic treatment carried out between 1 July 1998 and 30 June 1999. The reply rate was 80.9 percent. The majority of dentists carried out some form of orthodontic treatment, predominantly of a minor nature. A small number provided significant amounts of treatment, both simple and complex. The majority of orthodontic treatment and the majority of comprehensive fixed-appliance treatment were undertaken by orthodontists. One-quarter of all orthodontic patients in New Zealand were treated by dentists, irrespective of the complexity of treatment. Nearly a fifth of all full fixed upper and lower appliances, and nearly a third of all single-arch fixed appliances were placed by dentists during the study period. In general, male dentists, dentists over the age of 40, those who had attended an orthodontic continuing education course in the previous 5 years, and those who referred fewer patients to an orthodontist carried out more procedures, including those of a complex nature; they also had a higher average active orthodontic patient load. Wanting to be more or less busy had little influence on the amount or complexity of treatment performed. Dentists in regions with a low supply of specialist orthodontic services provided more comprehensive fixed appliance treatment and had a higher orthodontic patient load. However, the presence or absence of an orthodontist in an urban area seemed to have little impact on the complexity of treatment or the orthodontic patient load of dentists. Despite fewer orthodontists in secondary and minor urban areas, dentists in these areas did not have a higher orthodontic patient load, but carried out a wider range of procedures and more complex procedures than those in main urban areas.     

Geographic distribution of specialist orthodontists and orthodontic providers in Japan

ObjectiveThis study aimed to clarify the geographic distribution of specialist orthodontists and dentists who provide orthodontic services in Japan.MethodsWe obtained data on the populations of 1750 municipalities in Japan in 2010 by referring to the census. We obtained data on the number of dentists who mainly provide orthodontic services (specialist orthodontists) and the number of dentists, including general dentists, who provide orthodontic services (orthodontic providers), by referring to the Survey of Physicians, Dentists, and Pharmacists. Furthermore, we referred to the directory on the website of the Japanese Orthodontic Society (JOS) to obtain data on JOS-qualified orthodontists. To assess the distribution of specialist orthodontists and orthodontic providers, we used Lorenz curves and Gini coefficients.ResultsThe median value for the number of specialist orthodontists and number of JOS-certified orthodontists per 100,000 persons aged between 5 and 40 years old was 0, while that of orthodontic providers was 27.5. Gini coefficients for specialist orthodontists and JOS-certified orthodontists were 0.523 and 0.615, respectively. On the other hand, the Gini coefficient for orthodontic providers was 0.258.ConclusionsRegional inequalities in the availability of specialist orthodontists are high, and medical access to specialist orthodontic services may be limited in areas other than urban districts. In municipalities with a population of fewer than 50,000 inhabitants, the number of specialist orthodontists was very low, but orthodontic providers were relatively evenly distributed. Our research results suggested that studying the distribution of specialist orthodontists and orthodontic providers can provide valuable information for developing dental care policies.     

Preventing and treating white-spot lesions associated with orthodontic treatment: a survey of general dentists and orthodontists

BackgroundThe authors investigated the prevention and treatment of white-spot lesions (WSLs) during and after orthodontic therapy from the perspective of general dentists and orthodontists.MethodsThe authors administered a cross-sectional survey to general dentists (n = 191) and orthodontists (n = 305) in Virginia, Maryland and North Carolina.ResultsSixty-nine percent of general dentists and 76 percent of orthodontists recommended in-office fluoride treatment for patients with severe WSLs immediately after orthodontic treatment. Sixty-nine percent of general dentists reported that they had treated WSLs during the previous year, and 37 percent of orthodontists reported that they had removed braces because of patients' poor oral hygiene. Sixty percent of orthodontists referred patients with WSLs to general dentists for treatment. Eighty-five percent of orthodontists responded that they encouraged patients to use a fluoride rinse as a preventive measure. More than one-third of general dentists indicated that severe WSLs after orthodontic treatment could have a negative effect on their perception of the treating orthodontist.ConclusionsWSLs are a common complication of orthodontic treatment and their presence can result in a negative perception of the treating orthodontist by the patient's general dentist.Clinical implicationsGeneral dentists and orthodontists should work together to prevent the development of WSLs in their patients. Treatment with fluoride supplements and motivating and training patients to practice good oral hygiene will help achieve this goal. Treatment after debonding should include the topical application of low concentrations of fluoride.     

Provision of orthodontic care to adolescents in South Australia: The type, the provider, and the place of treatment

There are many pathways involving different providers and locations that individuals may take in obtaining orthodontic services. The aim of this study was to document the provision of orthodontic services and establish the pathways taken toward fixed orthodontic treatment by adolescents in South Australia. Data were collected on the use of orthodontic services by a cohort of adolescents enrolled in the School Dental Service at age 13 years and again at age 15 years. By age 15 years, 83.2 per cent of the adolescents had received orthodontic consultations, 27.3 per cent had received fixed orthodontic treatment and 41.4 per cent had received other forms of orthodontic treatment (extractions, space retainers or removable appliances). The majority of fixed orthodontic treatment was supplied by orthodontists in the private sector, while extractions and removable appliances were provided mainly by public sector general dentists. Most individuals used services in both the public and private sectors and the most frequent pathway taken by the adolescents receiving fixed orthodontic treatment involved consultation in both the public and private sectors, non-fixed orthodontic treatment in the public sector and fixed orthodontic treatment in the private sector. The findings indicate wide access to orthodontic consultation and a high uptake of fixed orthodontic treatment once the adolescent sought private sector orthodontic consultation. Orthodontic care was seen to be an interactive process between public sector general dentists and private sector orthodontists.     

Cost and productivity analysis of orthodontic care in Finland

Abstract– The aim of the study was to investigate the costs of orthodontic care provided for children and adolescents up to the age of 18 by municipal health centers in Finland, and to study the productivity of these services. The data were gathered by a questionnaire sent to all health centers; 96% responded. The majority of respondents estimated the share of orthodontic care as 10% of the total gross costs of dental care, given that 14% of all dental visits were for orthodontic reasons. To study the productivity in individual health centers, the output was measured by the estimated number of completely treated patients. The cost of orthodontic treatment per completely treated patient was, on average, FIM 7358, ranging from FIM 1299 to FIM 24 751. The strongest explanatory factor for the average total costs of orthodontic clinics was the number of general dentists with little experience in providing orthodontic treatment. Other explanatory factors were the number of orthodontists or experienced dentists, the percentage of orthodontic tasks performed by auxiliary personnel, and the timing of treatment. Savings might be obtained by devolving treatment to orthodontists or experienced dentists in-stead of to dentists with little orthodontic experience, and by starting treatment early. The estimated optimal size for an orthodontic clinic was found to be a unit with 830 completely treated patients per year, but most of the orthodontic clinics were in fact much smaller with, on average, 133 completely treated patients per year.     

Glove use by orthodontists: results of a survey in England and Wales.

Attitudes to glove wearing during treatment of patients were tested by distribution of a questionnaire to 2000 dentists known to be practising under the National Health Service regulations in England and Wales. Of the dentists who replied, 41 specialist orthodontists, representing approximately one-sixth of all orthodontists working in the general dental services in England and Wales, were identified. Results indicate that 39 per cent of these orthodontic respondents wore gloves routinely for all patients and procedures, while 49 per cent wore gloves for some patients or procedures, with 12 per cent never wearing gloves. Reasons given by the occasional glove wearers for not wearing gloves routinely included loss of tactile sensation, perceived small risk, lack of comfort, and restriction of movement. Six per cent of those who replied had experienced skin irritation considered to be associated with glove wearing, while latex gloves were preferred by 78 per cent of respondents who wore gloves.     

Profile of orthodontic services provided in private practice by general practitioners and specialist orthodontists for an insured population

In Australia, the proportion, volume and type of orthodontic care provided by general practitioners and orthodontists are largely unknown. The overall objective of this study was to create a profile of orthodontic services provided by general practitioners and orthodontists for a cohort of insured patients using private practices in New South Wales, Australia, from 1st January 1992 to 31st December 1995. Data were derived from claims records submitted by members of a health insurance fund for rebates for fees paid to private practitioners for orthodontic services they received during the study period. Distribution of the volume and type of service provided by general practitioners and orthodontists was compared using the Chi-squared test. Statistical significance was taken at the 5 per cent level. Orthodontic services were provided predominantly by orthodontists (80%). Fixed orthodontic treatment was provided almost exclusively (91%) by orthodontists. The majority of removable appliance services was provided by general practitioners. Orthodontists provided more orthodontic services in the capital city and other metropolitan areas, whereas general practitioners provided more orthodontic services in rural areas. Orthodontists provided more services to members in the highest socio-economic group, whereas general practitioners provided more services to members in the lowest socio-economic group.     

The B.S.S.O. M.Orth. Prize of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1998

Abstract

Aim: To determine the relationship between treatment need assessment scores of orthodontists, general practitioners, and pediatric dentists.

Study design: Observational.

Sample: Ten general dental practitioners, 18 orthodontists and 15 pediatric dentists reviewed 137 dental casts and recorded their opinion on whether orthodontic treatment was needed.

Results: We found a high level of agreement between pediatric dentists, orthodontists and general practitioners (Kappa range 0.86–0.95). Between the groups, the amount of agreement was lower.

Conclusions: Orthodontists, general dental practitioners, and pediatric dentists in this sample exhibit high levels of agreement on orthodontic treatment need.     

Perception of treatment need among orthodontic patients compared with professionals

The aim was to evaluate estimated need for orthodontic treatment, as judged from intraoral photographs, among orthodontic patients and professionals. Twenty consecutive prospective orthodontic patients, 20 consecutive orthodontically treated patients, 10 randomized general dentists, and 10 orthodontists participated. Seventy pairs of anonymous intraoral photographs of dentitions with varying degrees of objective treatment need were randomly arranged in a notebook. The general dentists and orthodontists rated orthodontic treatment need on a visual analog scale in a similar way among themselves and were more reserved than both patient categories, who also scored similarly among themselves. Professional raters also had similar inter- and intra-rater reliability among themselves, and it was higher than in either of the patient categories. Treatment providers appear to be more restrictive, consistent, and reliable in their judgement of orthodontic treatment need from intraoral photographs than the target group, patients positive toward orthodontic treatment.     

Outcome of orthodontic care in 19-year-olds attending the Public Dental Service in Sweden: residual need and demand for treatment

The study analyses residual need and demand for orthodontic treatment in 19-year-olds attending the Swedish Public Dental Service (PDS). The general practitioners (GPs) had selected individuals for orthodontic specialist consultation and some were treated by GPs or specialists or not considered to be in need for treatment. Altogether 164 individuals were called for clinical investigation at the age of 19 years and also given a questionnaire asking for residual orthodontic treatment demand and satisfaction with information and orthodontic care. Ninety-one per cent of the individuals who had had an orthodontic consultation and 53 per cent of those who had not seen an orthodontist took part in the investigation. The study revealed that half of the 19-year-olds at the PDS clinic had received orthodontic consultations and one third had received orthodontic appliance treatment. Seven percent of the investigated individuals had a residual subjective demand for treatment. Several individuals with removable appliance treatment had overjet and deep bite and laterally forced cross-bite, but with little remaining subjective demand for treatment. Individuals with fixed appliance treatment showed few malocclusions. Nineteen-year-olds in general were uncertain about their present need for orthodontic treatment. The following conclusions were drawn: the total amount of orthodontic treatment in different areas in Sweden is comparable but the distribution between GP and specialist treatment differs. Interceptive treatment to reduce overjets seemed not successful. Fixed appliances seemed to reduce the majority of the malocclusion traits. The information given in connection with orthodontic consultation or treatment was clearly inadequate.     

The benefits of early orthodontic treatment

Despite the recent recommendation by the American Association of Orthodontists and Dentofacial Orthopedics that orthodontists begin screening patients by age 7, it is the author's experience that the majority of orthodontists do not treat children prior to the eruption of permanent teeth and do not use functional appliances. This leads many general dentists to provide orthodontic services to their younger patients because local orthodontists do not or will not treat them. This article seeks to encourage all general dentists, pediatric dentists, and orthodontists to learn how to use functional appliances to significantly improve the health and appearance of younger patients.     

Extent and provision of orthodontic services for children and adolescents in Finland

Abstract Orthodontic services for Finnish children and adolescents up to the age of 18 in 1992 were monitored by a questionnaire sent to all municipal health centres responsible for children's dental care in Finland, and 96% responded. All health centres provided some orthodontic treatment, but the percentage of 0–18-year-old children receiving treatment ranged from 1% to 19%. One-quarter of all dental visits of the 0–18-year-olds were in connection with orthodontics. The timing of treatment was early: the average age for starting was 9.5 years. In statistical analyses, the number of children receiving treatment was associated with the timing of treatment. At the age of 7, the most frequently used appliances were quad helix, removable appliance and orthopaedic headgear and, at the age of 13, fixed appliance and activator. Most treatments were provided by nonspecialists. The specialist expertise needed was usually purchased from an outside orthodontist by means of consultation contracts. Every fifth health centre, usually the largest, had employed one or more specialist orthodontists. The regional distribution of orthodontists was uneven, emphasizing regional variation in the delivery of orthodontic services.     

A manpower study of orthodontic specialists for the State of Indiana: a preliminary report.

To develop current manpower data and project the future need for orthodontic specialists, a survey questionnaire was mailed to Indiana orthodontists (90 percent response). In addition, a telephone survey of orthodontic receptionists was conducted during the same time period (95 percent response). In general, orthodontists perceived a lower state of business than did their staffs. About 77 orthodontists are expected to retire by the year 2010. Based on maintaining the adjusted potential patient-to-orthodontist ratio (increasing adult and declining children in the population), it was projected that only about 66 (86 percent) of the retirees require replacement. To maintain manpower at eight percent fewer orthodontists than are currently in practice, three to four new orthodontists per year will be needed in Indiana over the next two decades.     

Outcome of a scheme for specialist orthodontic care

With the purpose of examining the outcome of specialist orthodontic care on a population level (Halland, Sweden), a random sample of previously treated 19-year-olds (n=118) was clinically examined and interviewed. Thirty-three per cent of the cohort (n=1554) had received treatment, and mean treatment time was 19 months requiring 20 visits. Changes in occlusion were assessed using the PAR Index applied to dental study casts representing the pre- and post-treatment and follow-up (19 years) condition. The subjects' responses to questions addressing their past and present attitudes to dental appearance and orthodontic treatment were combined to represent "orthodontic concern", at the pre-treatment stage and at 19 years of age. A mean reduction in weighted PAR scores of 83% was observed from pre-treatment to post-treatment, whereas at follow-up, the net improvement was 69%. A significant shift in attitudes was observed, as 72% of the individuals expressed orthodontic concern pre-treatment compared to less than 10% at 19 years. The improvement obtained was similar to other studies on outcome of orthodontic treatment provided by specialist orthodontists. Compared to most PAR-studies providing information about orthodontic services, the present scheme appeared to be efficient on the assumption that duration of treatment and number of visits are expressions of costs.     

Prospective survey of percutaneous injuries in orthodontic assistants

This prospective diary survey provides documentation concerning the occurrence of percutaneous injury among orthodontic chairside assistants in the United States and Canada. A 20-day period was used to collect data regarding exposure to injuries; 693 valid responses were received from orthodontic assistants. Most chairside assistants in this sample work in a solo practice and average 33 hours per week treating patients for 49 weeks per year. The study identified a percutaneous injury rate of 0.11 for chairside assistants during this period, a rate than can be extrapolated to 1.4 episodes of percutaneous injury per year per chairside assistant. The majority of these injuries occurred outside the mouth. Those assistants with longer orthodontic experience had a lower injury rate than those with less experience. The rate of percutaneous injury to dental assistants was slightly higher than the annual rate (0.99) for orthodontists monitored by means of a companion survey and slightly lower than the rate (1.9) for a smaller sample of orthodontists from the American Dental Association survey of 1995. The annual rate of percutaneous injury for orthodontic chairside assistants is less than half of that observed for dentists in general practice. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:72-6)     

Survey of dental practice/dental education in Victoria. Part IV. Specialist dental practice

A survey of dentists registered with the Dental Board and resident in the State of Victoria included two sections, one for specialist/restricted practitioners and the other for practitioners, who had gained a postgraduate degree from the University of Melbourne between December 1982 and 1987. The responses of the former suggested that demand for most specialist services appears to be reasonably healthy at the moment and the majority of the latter indicated that they had been adequately trained for specialist practice. It was suggested that there are several market forces which could influence the number of applicants seeking specialist training in future. Strongest demand was likely to be sustained for oral surgery and orthodontics. This is despite evidence of a decline in demand for specialist orthodontic services in private practice. Attention was drawn to the 1986 Ministerial Review of Dental Services in Victoria, in which concern was expressed for the lack of access to orthodontic services for low income families. It was proposed that more cost-effective methods of deploying orthodontic personnel could be used, as in other countries, to provide this access. Demand for specialist services in endodontics, paediatric dentistry, periodontics and prosthodontics could decline in future as general practitioners steadily broaden their range of services through continuing education courses.     

Distribution of orthodontic services and fees in an insured population in Washington.

Previous attempts to quantify the amount and type of orthodontic therapy provided by nonorthodontists in the United States have relied on survey data. Although there are advantages to surveys, such as control over survey recipients and inclusion of specific questions, they also have limitations, such as low response rates, response bias, and recall bias. This study used insurance claims data from a large dental benefits provider in Washington to assess the distribution of orthodontic services and fees among various dental providers. All orthodontic claims allowed by Washington Dental Service in 2001 were retrieved, along with treatment codes, fees, and demographic information for both patients and providers. A total of 102,984 orthodontic claims were included in the study. General dentists submitted 7.0% of these claims, orthodontists submitted 90.9%, and pedodontists submitted 1.9%. Orthodontists submitted higher average fees for space maintainers, first payments, and records. The percentage of orthodontic treatment preformed by general dentists and pedodontists in this claims-based study was substantially less than what has been previously reported in survey-based studies. Additionally, a smaller percentage of general dentists and pedodontists in this study performed comprehensive treatment, compared with previous studies. This study illustrates the value of insurance claims data to assess the provision of orthodontic care.     

Orthodontic treatment and referral patterns: A survey of pediatric dentists,general practitioners,and orthodontists

Objective

This study aims to assess the orthodontic diagnostic skills, referral patterns, and the perceptions of orthodontic benefits of pediatric and general dentists in comparison with orthodontists.

Materials and methods

Two online surveys were e-mailed to pediatric dentists, general dentistry practitioners, and orthodontists registered as members of the Saudi Dental Society and the Saudi Orthodontic Society. The surveys included questions about the type of orthodontic treatment provided, referral trends, and timing; presumed benefits associated with successful orthodontic treatment; and diagnosis and treatment plans of seven cases representing different malocclusions.

Results

In total, 25 orthodontists, 18 pediatric dentists, and 14 general practitioners completed the survey. Only 38.8% of pediatric dentists and 7.1% of general practitioners reported that they practiced orthodontics clinically. The perceptions of the three groups toward the benefits of orthodontic treatment were comparable in the psychosocial areas. However, the orthodontists perceived significantly lesser effects of orthodontic treatment on the amelioration of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) symptoms. Pediatric dentists tended to rate the need and urgency of treatment higher, while general practitioners tended to rate the need of treatment lower. The selected treatment plans for three early malocclusion cases showed the greatest discrepancies between the orthodontists and the other two groups.

Conclusions

The orthodontists consistently and significantly downplayed the perceived benefit of orthodontic treatment to reduce TMD symptoms. Also, while there was a similarity in the diagnosis, there were notable differences in the proposed treatment approaches, perceived treatment need, and timing of intervention between the three groups of practitioners.     

Gifts from orthodontists to general dentists

Objectives:To determine how often general dentists receive gifts from orthodontists, the value and number of the gifts they receive, and how they perceive the motivation behind the gift.Materials and Methods:This was a questionnaire-based study. A questionnaire was constructed and tested for validity and reliability. An electronic version of survey was sent via email to 1300 general dentists.Results:The validity and reliability of the survey was confirmed. Two hundred fifty-four valid responses were received (20%). Eighty-five percent of responding general practitioners reported that they received gifts from an orthodontist. Almost 100% reported that they referred patients to orthodontists. About one-third of the responding general practitioners reported that their office provided orthodontic care. There were statistically significant correlations between the number of annual patient referrals the general practitioners reported making and the number and value of the gifts they received from the orthodontists. Female general practitioners reported receiving a higher number of gifts of greater total value than male practitioners. General practitioners who reported providing orthodontic treatment did not differ from those who did not in the number of referrals they made annually and the number and value of the gifts they received. Quality of care was the most common reason general practitioners reported for their referral to an orthodontist. Forty-four percent of the responders reported that they received discounted orthodontic treatment.Conclusions:General practitioners refer patients to orthodontists and receive gifts from them. The number and value of the gifts reflects the number of referrals they make.