Quality of orthodontic treatment performed by orthodontists and general dentists: A blind comparative evaluation

Objective:To perform a blind comparative evaluation of the quality of orthodontic treatment provided by orthodontists and general dentists.Materials and Methods:Sixty cases of orthodontic treatment were evaluated—30 treated by specialists in orthodontics and 30 treated by general dentists with no specialization course. Orthodontists were selected randomly by lots, in a population of 1596 professionals, and recordings were performed based on the guideline established by the Objective Grading System proposed by the American Board of Orthodontics. Each participant was asked to present a case considered representative of the best outcome among the cases treated, regardless of the type or initial severity of the malocclusion. Statistical analysis involved the chi-square, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney tests. The level of significance was set at P  =  .05 for the statistical tests.Results:The results showed that 29 orthodontists (96.7%) presented cases considered satisfactory and would be approved on the qualification exam, whereas only 15 dentists (50%) had cases considered satisfactory. Moreover, treatment time was significantly shorter among the orthodontists (P  =  .022), and the posttreatment comparison revealed that orthodontists achieved better outcomes considering all the variables studied.Conclusions:Orthodontists spend less time on treatment and achieve better quality outcomes than cases treated by general dentists who have not undergone a specialization course in orthodontics.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Facial soft-tissue changes after rapid maxillary expansion analyzed with 3-dimensional stereophotogrammetry: A randomized,controlled clinical trial

Objective:To evaluate three-dimensional (3-D) soft tissue facial changes following rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and to compare these changes with an untreated control group.Materials and Methods:Patients who need RME as a part of their orthodontic treatment were randomly divided into two groups of 17 patients each. Eligibility criteria included having maxillary transverse deficiency with crossbite, and to be in the normal range according to body mass index. In the first group (mean age  =  13.4 ± 1.2 years), expansion was performed. The second group received no treatment initially and served as untreated control (mean age  =  12.8 ± 1.3 years). Skeletal and soft tissue changes were evaluated using posteroanterior cephalograms and 3-D facial images. The primary outcome of this study was to assess the soft tissue changes. The secondary outcomes were evaluation hard tissue and soft tissue relations. Randomization was done with preprepared random number tables. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessment only. MANOVA, t-test, and correlation analyses were used (P  =  .05).Results:In both groups, there was a general trend of increase for the transverse skeletal measurements, but these increases were more limited in the control group. Alar base width was greater in the treatment group (P  =  .002). Pogonion soft tissue point (P  =  .022) was located more posteriorly in the expansion group compared with the control group.Conclusions:Soft tissue changes between groups were similar, except for the alar base, which became wider in the treatment group. Weak correlations were found between the skeletal and soft tissue changes.     

Current trends in headgear use for the treatment of Class II malocclusions

Objective:To investigate American and Canadian orthodontists’ opinions and perceptions on the use of headgear in the treatment of Class II malocclusions.Materials and Methods:An online survey was sent to randomly chosen orthodontists (n  =  1000).Results:The study was completed by 948 orthodontists; 62% of the orthodontists indicated that they were using headgear in their practice. Those who were not using the appliance (38%) reported that this was mainly due to the availability of better Class II correctors in the market and lack of patient compliance. Of those who use headgear, 24% indicated that the emphasis on headgear use during their residency was an influential aspect of their decision making (P < .05). Nearly a quarter of those who do not use headgear reported that learning about other Class II correctors through continuing education courses was an important factor (P < .05). There was no difference between the headgear users and nonusers in the year and location of practice. Compared with previous studies, this study showed a decline in the use of headgear among orthodontists.Conclusions:Despite a decline, more than half of the orthodontists (62%) believe headgear is a viable treatment. Availability of Class II correctors in the market and familiarity with these appliances though continuing education courses are the reasons for the remaining 38% of orthodontists to abandon use of the headgear.     

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.     

Patient attitudes toward retention and perceptions of treatment success

Objective:To discern patients'' opinions regarding responsibility for orthodontic retention and to determine whether patient attitudes toward retention are related to perceptions of treatment success.Materials and Methods:Questionnaires regarding orthodontic retention were distributed to first-year undergraduate college students (n  =  158), first-year dental students (n  =  183), and retention patients at orthodontic offices (n  =  214). Items included treatment satisfaction, perceived responsibility for retention, type of retainer prescribed, reasons for discontinuing use of retainers, and relapse experienced.Results:Four hundred twenty-eight of 555 participants indicated that they had received orthodontic treatment. Most indicated they were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their teeth, both at the end of treatment (96%) and currently (84%). There was a strong relationship between the perception of stability of tooth position and current satisfaction level (P < .0001). Most individuals (88%) indicated that they themselves were responsible for maintaining the alignment and fit of their teeth. Those who indicated that someone else was responsible were nearly twice as likely to be dissatisfied with their teeth (P  =  .0496). Patients who had been prescribed clear, invisible retainers were significantly more likely to be “very satisfied” currently (50%) compared to those with Hawley (35%) or permanently bonded (36%) retainers (P  =  .0002). Patients with Hawley retainers were significantly less likely to be wearing them currently as prescribed (45%) than those with invisible (65%) or bonded (68%) retainers (P < .0001).Conclusions:Satisfaction with orthodontic results after treatment is related to patient perceptions of responsibility for retention and perceived stability of tooth position. Patients should play a contributory role in formulating orthodontic retention plans.     

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.     

Smile microesthetics as perceived by dental professionals and laypersons

ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the perception of different dental professionals and laypersons toward altered gingival characteristics (microesthetics) and to identify those characteristics that are most negatively and positively rated.Materials and MethodsA smiling photograph of a female dental student was selected and digitally manipulated to create changes in different microesthetic parameters. These altered images were rated by the following five groups: 120 orthodontists, 45 periodontists, 49 prosthodontists, 130 general dentists, and 172 laypersons. Smile esthetics scores were calculated, and comparisons between groups were performed using the univariate general linear model.ResultsThe presence of black triangles between the upper incisors was the most negatively rated, and the ideal smile was the most positively rated. Significant differences were detected in the rating scores among the different study groups (P < .05). Orthodontists, prosthodontists, and general dentists scored the presence of a black triangle in the smile as the least attractive, whereas periodontists and laypersons perceived the inflamed gingiva and pigmented gingiva as the least attractive, respectively. Dental specialists tended to give the altered smile images lower scores than the laypersons.ConclusionsThe ideal smile and that with black triangles between the upper incisors were rated as the most and the least attractive smiles, respectively. Orthodontists, prosthodontists, and general dentists scored the presence of black triangles in the smile as the least attractive, whereas periodontists and laypersons perceived the inflamed gingiva and pigmented gingiva as the least attractive smiles, respectively. Dental specialists tended to give the altered smile images lower scores than the laypersons.     

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.     

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.     

Adherence in orthodontic settings: Understanding practitioner views in a UK sample

Objective:To explore predictors of adherence in adult orthodontic patients as reported by orthodontists in the UK.Materials and Methods:Twenty-three orthodontists (47% female and 53% male) from the UK with approximately 15 years of experience each (M  =  14.7; SD  =  1.73) completed a questionnaire regarding the importance they give to a number of factors signaled in the literature as adequate predictors of adherence. This cross-sectional quantitative and exploratory survey consisted of four parts, requesting orthodontists to rate a list of predictors of adherence on (1) evaluation—how important they thought the predictor was to assess patient adherence, (2) application—the extent to which they used each predictor to assess adherence in their daily practice, (3) open-ended questions to collect any other perceived predictors of adherence, and (4) demographics.Results:All participating orthodontists agreed that patients'' regularity in attending appointments, maintenance of good oral hygiene, and utilization of dental appliances are the most important factors for predicting adherence. In the open-ended portion of the questionnaire, orthodontists also highlighted perceived cost of treatment as an important factor. The remaining factors included in the questionnaire were also rated as important or utilized, though they yielded a more varied pattern of response.Conclusions:Appointment keeping, cooperating in the use of removable appliances, and oral hygiene were rated as the most important factors by orthodontists when assessing adherence in adult patients. The perceived cost of treatment was also highlighted by orthodontists as an important factor for adherence.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Parents' preferences regarding appearance and attire of orthodontists

Objective:To evaluate parents'' preferences regarding the appearance and attire of orthodontists.Materials and Methods:Parents attending their child''s first orthodontic appointment were asked to choose from among sets of photographs of potential orthodontic providers. Selected factors were varied within the sets, including sex and age of the provider as well as attire (casual, formal, white coat, or scrubs), hairstyle (loose or tied back for women, facial hair or clean shaven for men), and presence of a nametag.Results:A total of 77 parents participated. There were significant differences in choice of provider in terms of the provider''s sex (P < .0001), age (P  =  .0013), dress (P < .0001), hair (P < .0001), and nametag (P  =  .0065). There were no significant differences in preference attributable to parent characteristics (P > .05).Conclusion:Parents of orthodontic patients demonstrated clear preferences for choosing a provider related to factors that are not within the control of the practitioner (sex and age) as well as factors that can be changed by the practitioner (attire, hairstyle, and wearing a nametag).     

Skeletal and Soft Tissue Point A and B Changes Following Orthodontic Treatment of Nepalese Class I Bimaxillary Protrusive Patients

Objectives:To test the hypothesis that there is no correlation in the interrelationships of skeletal and soft tissue points A and B with anterior teeth retraction.Materials and Methods:Thirty adult Class I bimaxillary protrusion patients treated with preadjusted appliances after first premolar extraction were included. Pretreatment and posttreatment variables were compared using paired t-test, and the relationship of soft and hard tissue variables was studied using Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression equation.Results:Mean point A and soft tissue point A (sA) were retracted 2.7 mm (P < .001) and 1.7 mm (P < .001), and mean point B and soft tissue point B (sB) were retracted 2.1 mm (P < .001) and 1.2 mm (P < .001), respectively. Mean ratio of retraction of point A with sA and point B with sB was 1.5∶1 and 1.7∶1, respectively. A significant degree of correlation existed between retraction of point A and soft tissue point A (r  =  0.648, P < .01) and point B and soft tissue point B (r  =  0.806, P < .01). Linear regression analysis used to predict the changes in sA and sB showed significant relationship between point A and sA (r  =  0.543, F  =  11.7, R²  =  0.29, P < .001) and point B and sB (r  =  0.825, F  =  59.7, R²  =  0.68, P < .001). Decreases in hard and soft tissue convexity were due to the retraction of the skeletal and soft tissue points A and B in addition to the lips retraction.Conclusions:The hypothesis is rejected. Retraction of skeletal point A and B lead to retraction of sA and sB under controlled root positions. Nearly proportionate changes existed in the skeletal points and overlying corresponding soft tissue points.     

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.