Perceptions of soft tissue laser use in orthodontics: A survey of orthodontists,periodontists, and general dentists

Objectives:To compare attitudes of orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists regarding the use of soft tissue lasers by orthodontists during the course of orthodontic treatment.Materials and Methods:An analogous survey was developed to evaluate and compare the current opinions of a representative sample (n  =  538) of orthodontists (61.3%), periodontists (24.3%), and general dentists (14.3%) regarding orthodontists'' use of soft tissue lasers.Results:The majority (84%) of orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists regarded the use of a soft tissue laser by orthodontists as appropriate. When compared to orthodontists and general dentists, a lower percentage of periodontists indicated that soft tissue laser use by orthodontists was appropriate (P < .01). For each of the eight specific soft tissue laser procedures investigated, periodontists reported a significantly lower level of appropriateness than did orthodontists and general dentists (P < .01). Around 75% of the total sample believed that referral would not be affected by the use of soft tissue lasers by orthodontists.Conclusions:Orthodontists, periodontists, and general dentists differed in their opinions of the perceived appropriateness of soft tissue laser use by orthodontists, with periodontists reporting a lower level of appropriateness. Clinicians need to communicate effectively to ensure that orthodontic patients in need of adjunctive soft tissue surgery are treated to the accepted standard of care.     

Communication practices and preferences between orthodontists and general dentists

Objective:To evaluate similarities and differences in orthodontists'' and general dentists'' perceptions regarding their interdisciplinary communication.Materials and Methods:Orthodontists (N  =  137) and general dentists (N  =  144) throughout the United States responded to an invitation to participate in a Web-based and mailed survey, respectively.Results:The results indicated that orthodontists communicated with general dentists using the type of media general dentists preferred to use. As treatment complexity increased, orthodontists shifted from one-way forms of communication (letters) to two-way forms of communication (phone calls; P < .05). Both orthodontists and general dentists reported that orthodontists'' communication regarding white spot lesions was inadequate. When treating patients with missing or malformed teeth, orthodontists reported that they sought input from the general dentists at a higher rate than the general dentists reported (P < .005).Conclusions:Orthodontists'' and general dentists'' perceptions of how often specific types of media were used for interdisciplinary communication were generally similar. They differed, however, with regard to how adequately orthodontists communicated with general dentists and how often orthodontists sought input from general dentists. The methods and extent of communication between orthodontists and general dentists need to be determined on a patient-by-patient basis.     

Interproximal reduction of teeth: Differences in perspective between orthodontists and dentists

Objective:To determine if interproximal reduction of teeth (IPR) is perceived differently by orthodontists and general dentists.Materials and Methods:A Web-based survey containing statements about IPR was developed and randomly distributed to orthodontists and general dentists.Results:The majority of orthodontists and general dentists strongly agreed that IPR is a minimally invasive procedure that poses little risk for the development of interproximal decay. However, general dentists were more likely to perform post-IPR polishing and to apply topical fluoride than are orthodontists (P < .0001). A greater percentage of orthodontists strongly believed that the esthetic and occlusal benefits of IPR outweigh the potential risk of tooth decay when IPR was performed (P < .0001). A greater percentage of general dentists were hesitant to perform IPR, despite research supporting that IPR has little negative effect on the health of teeth.Conclusions:The results of this study disproved the null hypothesis that orthodontists and general dentists share similar views regarding the use of IPR during orthodontic treatment. General dentists were more conservative in their views of IPR and were less comfortable with performing IPR as a routine procedure. General dentists felt more strongly about the importance of post-IPR polishing and application of topical fluoride. Orthodontists were more likely to have researched the long-term effects of IPR on the health of teeth and therefore felt more comfortable performing IPR during orthodontic treatment.     

Treatment management between orthodontists and general practitioners performing clear aligner therapy

Objective:To investigate differences in case selection, treatment management, and aligner treatment expertise between orthodontists and general practitioners.Materials and Methods:A parallel pair of original surveys with three sections (case selection, treatment management, and demographics) was sent to orthodontists (N = 1000) and general dentists (N = 1000) who were providers of aligner treatment.Results:Orthodontists had treated significantly more patients with aligners, had treated more patients with aligners in the previous 12 months, and had received more aligner training than general dentists (P < .0001). In general, case confidence increased with increasing experience for both orthodontists and general dentists. After adjusting for experience, there was a significant difference in aligner case confidence between orthodontists and general dentists for several malocclusions. General dentists were more confident than orthodontists in treating deep bite, severe crowding, and Class II malocclusions with aligners (P ≤ .0001). Significant differences were also found for all treatment management techniques except interproximal reduction.Conclusion:There was a significant difference in case selection, treatment management, and aligner expertise between orthodontists and general dentists, although the differences in case selection were small. Overall, it was shown that orthodontists and general dentists elected to treat a variety of moderate to severe malocclusions with aligners but with different utilization of recommended auxiliaries, perhaps demonstrating a difference in treatment goals.     

Orthodontic marketing through social media networks: The patient and practitioner's perspective

Objective:To (1) assess orthodontic patient and practitioner use of and preferences for social media and (2) investigate the potential benefit of social media in marketing and communication strategies in orthodontic practices.Materials and Methods:A survey was developed and randomly distributed to orthodontists via the American Association of Orthodontists and to patients/parents via private practices throughout the United States. Participants were asked to answer questions related to their use of social media and their perceptions of the use of social media in the orthodontic practice.Results:Of the participants, 76% of orthodontists and 89% of patients/parents use social media. Furthermore, Facebook was the social media platform that was most preferred. Social media use was more common in female and younger adult participants. Orthodontists posted information more often in the morning (40%) and afternoon (56%), and patients/parents used social media mainly in the evening (76%). The most commonly used marketing strategies in the orthodontic practices were social media (76%) and a practice website (59%). Social media and practice websites were positively related with new patient starts (P  =  .0376, P  =  .0035, respectively).Conclusions:Most orthodontists and patients/parents used social media. Social media may be an effective marketing and communication tool in an orthodontic practice.     

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.     

Comparative Use of Invisalign® by Orthodontists and General Practitioners

Objective:To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the use of Invisalign® between orthodontists and general practitioners.Materials and Methods:A questionnaire was mailed to all Invisalign® providers within a 35-mile radius of Stony Brook University. The answers were statistically analyzed. The level of significance was set at P < .05.Results:Orthodontists started more Invisalign® cases (P < .0001). General practitioners started more Invisalign® cases in the last 12 months (P  =  .0012). For both groups, the percentage of cases started in the last 12 months was inversely related to the number of years certified in Invisalign® (P < .0001). Significant differences in opinion (P < .001) were noted between orthodontists and general practitioners regarding the level of experience necessary to treat a Class I malocclusion with a large diastema, and whether a Class II subdivision case should be treated with Invisalign®.Conclusion:The hypothesis is rejected. The use of Invisalign® by orthodontists and general practitioners was compared, and significant differences were found.     

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.     

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.     

Analysis of smile esthetics in American Board of Orthodontic patients

Objective:To investigate the common denominators of an esthetically pleasing smile in patients who were considered to be successfully treated upon the submission to American Board Orthodontics (ABO) clinical examination.Material and Methods:A total of 462 patients were examined. Ninety subjects that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. Standardized digital smile photographs of the subjects were rated by 30 panel members, including orthodontists, general dentists, and parents of orthodontic patients, using a numeric version of the visual analog scale. Three groups were formed using the mean esthetic score ± standard deviation range: unattractive (n  =  21), average (n  =  47), and attractive (n  =  22) smiles. Eleven smile characteristics were digitally measured on the photographs and compared between the groups using one-way analysis of variance and χ² tests. Additionally, regression analyses were used to investigate the association of the smile characteristics with the esthetic score.Results:A significant difference was found between the three groups for the comparison of smile arc relationship (P < .001). When all the variables used in this study were entered in the regression analysis, a positive association was found (r  =  0.658; r²  =  0.434; P < .001). Additionally, two models were defined using stepwise regression. The first model included the smile arc (r  =  0.478; r²  =  0.228; P < .001), and the second model had both the smile arc and right gingival display/visible dentition display ratio (r  =  0.567; r²  =  0.321; P < .001).Conclusions:A harmonious smile arc relationship and less gingival display during a smile are significantly associated with smile attractiveness in patients considered successfully treated according to ABO standards.     

Orthodontists' perceptions of and adaptations to nonspecialist and direct-to-consumer orthodontic service providers

ObjectivesTo evaluate orthodontists'' perceived impacts on their practices as a result of general practitioners (GPs) and direct-to-consumer (DTC) orthodontic care providers and the adaptational changes implemented in the past 10 years.Materials and MethodsAn electronic survey was administered to 270 orthodontists in Canada and the United States to determine demographic background, perception of perceived impact, and specific changes implemented to improve practice competitiveness.ResultsMore experienced orthodontists (P = .0001) and males (P = .027) were more likely to indicate a perceived impact from GP orthodontics. American orthodontists were significantly more likely than Canadian orthodontists to perceive an impact from DTC providers (P = .017). There was a positive association with orthodontists'' years of experience and having implemented adaptational changes to their practice for a period greater than 10 years across multiple categories. Female orthodontists were more likely to have implemented adaptational changes for a period of less than 10 years across multiple categories.ConclusionsThe perceived impact of GPs providing orthodontic care was greater than that of DTC providers. American orthodontists were significantly more likely to perceive an impact from DTC providers. Orthodontists have experienced a reduction in referrals from GPs and an increase in referred case difficulty. Less experienced and female orthodontists have made the most adaptive changes to their practices in the past 10 years.     

Self-ligating vs conventional brackets as perceived by orthodontists

Objective:To determine if there are significant clinical differences between self-ligating brackets (SLB) and conventional brackets (CB) during orthodontic treatment, as perceived by orthodontists.Materials and Methods:A survey was developed and distributed to evaluate how SLB compare to CB in terms of orthodontists'' perceptions (n  =  430).Results:SLB were preferred during the initial stage of treatment based on the shorter adjustment appointments and faster initial treatment progress they provided (P < .0001). On the other hand, practitioners preferred CB during the finishing and detailing stages of treatment (P < .0001). CB were also preferred over SLB because they were cheaper and resulted in fewer emergency appointments.Conclusions:The orthodontists'' preference was significantly influenced by (1) the proportion of patients treated with SLB (P < .0001), (2) the number of cases it took them to become accustomed to SLB (P < .0001), and (3) the average appointment intervals associated with SLB (P < .0001).     

Canting of the occlusal plane: Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons

Objectives: To determine if canting of the occlusal plane influences esthetic evaluation of the smile among orthodontists, dentists and laypersons. Study Design: A frontal photo of a smile with 0º occlusal plane canting in relation to the bipupillary plane was modified using Adobe Photoshop C3 (Adobe Systems Inc, San José, California) to generate two images with occlusal plane inclinations of 2º and 4º. The three images were evaluated esthetically by orthodontists (n=40) general dentists (n=40) and laypersons (n=40). Each image was awarded a score as follows: 1=esthetically acceptable; 2=moderately acceptable; 3=esthetically unacceptable. Evaluators also placed the three images in order in preference. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis (p<0.05) and the Mann-Whitney tests, applying the Bonferroni Correction (p<0.016). Results: No significant differences (p> 0.05) were found between the three groups for 0º and 2º cants (median for orthodontists=1; general dentists=1; laypersons=1). Orthodontists (median score=3) made evaluations of the image with 4º occlusal plane that were significantly different from general dentists (median=2) and laypersons (median=2). All three groups put the 0º image in first place in order of esthetic acceptability, the 2º image in second place and the 4º image in third place. Orthodontists placed the 0º image in first place with significantly greater frequency (p<0.016) than laypersons. Conclusions: Occlusal plane canting of 0º and 2º were evaluated as esthetically acceptable by the three groups. The 4º occlusal plane cant was evaluated more negatively by orthodontists than by general dentists and laypersons. All three groups placed the 0º image in first place of esthetic acceptability, 2º in second place and 4º in third. Orthodontists put the 0º image in first place with significantly greater frequency than laypersons. Key words:Canting, perception, smile, orthodontics, dental esthetics.     

Factors affecting orthodontists' management of the retention phase

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that orthodontist characteristics and factors related to retainer choice do not influence the management of the retention phase with regard to frequency and duration of follow-up care provided.Materials and Methods:Orthodontists (n  =  1000) were randomly selected to participate in an online survey divided into three categories: background, retainer choice, and time management.Results:Of the 1000 selected participants, 894 responded. When deciding the type of retainer to use, the following were considered most frequently: pretreatment malocclusion (91%), patient compliance (87%), patient oral hygiene (84%), and patients'' desires (81%). Orthodontists who considered the presence of third molars (P  =  .03) or “special needs” patients (P  =  .02) had significantly more follow-up visits than those who did not. When vacuum-formed retainers (VFRs) were prescribed, there were significantly fewer visits (P  =  .02) compared to when other types of retainers were used. As practitioner experience increased, so did the number of visits (P < .0001). Orthodontists who considered the primary responsibility of retention to fall on the patient had significantly fewer follow-up visits (P < .0001) than those who considered it either a joint or orthodontist-only responsibility.Conclusions:The null hypothesis was rejected because the number of follow-up visits during the retention phase was affected by practitioner experience, whether VFRs were used, whether the orthodontist considered the presence of third molars or special-needs patients when choosing the type of retainer, and to whom the orthodontist attributed responsibility during the retention phase.     

Comparison of perception of necessity of orthodontic treatment between orthodontists and dentists at dental check-ups with DAI

PurposeThe aims of this study were to examine the gaps in the perception of the necessity of orthodontic treatment between orthodontists and dentists, and identify the items influencing perception using the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI).Materials and methodsBoth dentists and orthodontists assessed the necessity of orthodontic treatment in the 693 junior and senior high school students, and orthodontists examined the occlusion of the students with DAI. The data were analyzed with Student's t-test, Bonferroni multiple comparison test and decision analysis.ResultsIn the orthodontist’ perception, clearly significant differences were observed in all DAI items between necessary and unnecessary groups. However, maxillary missing teeth, mandibular missing teeth, spacing and diastema did not show a clear difference in the dentists’ perception. In the comparison of perception between orthodontists and dentists, crowding, largest anterior maxillary irregularity and largest mandibular irregularity showed significant differences. Decision analysis demonstrated that crowding was the most important item for both orthodontists and dentists.ConclusionThere were two types of gaps in the perception of the necessity of orthodontic treatment. The first one is an individual difference among the dentists, which is related to the evaluation of missing teeth and space in the dental arches. The other is recognized as gaps in the perception between orthodontists and dentists, which are related to the amounts of crowding. It is important to realize the difference of perception and improve the mutual understanding to prevent overlooking malocclusion.     

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.     

Another way of looking at treatment stability

Objective:To determine the contribution of normal physiological changes to the overall manifestation of a relapse after orthodontic treatment. We analyzed long-term changes in the dentition of patients with Class I malocclusions after orthodontic treatment compared with a representative group with untreated Class I malocclusions.Materials and Methods:Study participants (n  =  66; mean age, 12 years at treatment initiation) were treated for Class I malocclusions. Dental changes were evaluated at 2, 5, 10, and 15 years after treatment. Control participants (n  =  79) had untreated Class I malocclusions (n  =  53 evaluated at ages 12 and 22 years; n  =  26 evaluated at ages 19 and 39 years). Dental changes were evaluated with the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index.Results:In untreated and treated groups, PAR scores increased over time with gender-specific changes. In the untreated groups, the PAR score significantly increased in male participants between the ages of 12 and 22 years (P  =  .04) and in female participants between the ages of 19 and 39 years (P  =  .001). In the treated group, early posttreatment changes were primarily related to the initial treatment response. Later changes in the PAR score could be attributed to physiological changes, with the same gender-specific changes as those observed in the untreated group.Conclusions:The pattern of physiological changes in dentition for participants between the ages of 12 and 39 was different between sexes. Females showed more relapse than males between 10 and 15 years posttreatment. This distinction should be considered when evaluating long-term orthodontic treatment responses.     

Differences in psychological traits between lingual and labial orthodontic patients: Perfectionism,body image,and the impact of dental esthetics

Objective:To examine some of the patients'' psychological traits in relation to their levels of perfectionism and their body image, and to discover whether these differ between lingual and labial orthodontic patients.Materials and Methods:A cross-sectional study was designed with a consecutive sample of 80 patients attending a private orthodontic office. Three questionnaires were used to assess the patients'' body image and level of perfectionism. The mean age was 33 years. The men numbered 32 and the women 48. The validated Spanish version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetic Questionnaire (PIDAQ) was used to assess the psychosocial impact of their dental esthetics. The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) was used to assess how perfectionist the patients were. A version of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ) was used for assessment of their body image. Student''s t-test was used to compare the means and 95% confidence intervals (P < .05), and a logistic regression model was used for multivariate analysis.Results:The PIDAQ (55.4 vs 60, P  =  .218) and MBSRQ (128.7 vs 125.9, P  =  .523) results of the patients who chose lingual orthodontics did not differ significantly from those who opted for labial orthodontics. However, the MPS scores of the lingual orthodontic patients were significantly higher (95.9 vs 86.3, P  =  .044), and high social class, over 30 years of age, and perfectionist traits were significant independent variables in this group.Conclusions:This pilot study may indicate that lingual orthodontic patients are more perfectionists than labial orthodontic patients.     

Orthodontics is temporomandibular disorder–neutral

Objectives:To assess if subjects with a clinical diagnosis of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) have a similar prevalence of orthodontic history as a population of TMD-free individuals and to assess if those subjects who have a history of ideal orthodontics have fewer symptoms than those with a history of nonideal orthodontics.Materials and Methods:Two groups of age- and sex-matched individuals belonging to either a study (“TMD”) or a control group were recruited. Subjects who underwent orthodontic treatment were classified as having a history of ideal or nonideal orthodontics based on the current presence of normal values in five reference occlusal features.Results:The correlation with a history of orthodontic treatment was not clinically significant for any of the TMD diagnoses (ie, muscle pain, joint pain, disc displacement, arthrosis), with Phi (Φ) coefficient values within the −0.120 to 0.058 range. Within the subset of patients with a history of orthodontics, the correlation of ideal or nonideal orthodontic treatment with TMD diagnoses was, in general, not clinically relevant or was weakly relevant.Conclusions:Findings confirmed the substantial absence of clinically significant effects of orthodontics as far as TMD is concerned. The very low correlation values of a negative or positive history of ideal or nonideal orthodontics with the different TMD diagnoses suggest that orthodontic treatment could not have a true role for TMD.     

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.