Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in educational and private practice settings

An accredited graduate orthodontic program provides advanced specialty education to meet standards of care mandated by the ADA, including both didactic and clinical components with defined outcome measures. To quantify these measures, the quality of care provided by graduate orthodontic students was compared to that of orthodontists in private practice. The quality of care was studied in two different delivery settings in the Columbus, Ohio, area-private practice orthodontists (PPO) and the OSU graduate orthodontic clinic (GOC). The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Occlusal Index was used as a measure of malocclusion severity and post-treatment occlusal outcome. Quality of care was measured using post-treatment PAR, percent PAR reduction, and treatment duration. At baseline, no differences were seen in the gender and pre-PAR scores of patients treated by the PPO and GOC, but statistically significant differences were seen in patients' pre-treatment age, race, and starting dentition. When the post-treatment occlusal results were compared, no statistically significant differences were seen in post-PAR scores and percent PAR reduction between the PPO and GOC. A statistically significant difference was seen in treatment duration (p = 0.002), which was longer in the PPO even after controlling for confounding factors such as pre-treatment age, gender, race, starting dentition, and treatment stages. Our conclusion is that there was no statistically significant difference in the occlusal outcome between the PPO and GOC, but there was a significant difference in the treatment duration.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Orthodontic treatment in the early mixed dentition: is this the optimum time to start care?

The age at which children should start orthodontic treatment has been debated amongst orthodontists for many decades. Orthodontists can agree on what is a quality orthodontic result, but disagree as to how and when to best obtain this result Some orthodontists contend that starting treatment in the primary dentition is the most effective means of orthodontic care. Other orthodontists would prefer to begin in the early or late mixed dentition. Still others would rather postpone treatment until the permanent dentition at approximately age 12. This article will evaluate the pros and cons of initiating treatment at different ages.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Serial Extraction or Premolar Extraction in the Permanent Dentition? Comparison of Duration and Outcome of Orthodontic Treatment

Treatment outcome and duration of 2 different treatment approaches in 2 groups of comparable extraction cases were analyzed: Group I: serial extraction performed in the early mixed dentition followed by orthodontic treatment in the permanent dentition; group II: extractions as well as orthodontic treatment in the permanent dentition. The following conclusions were reached: 1. The treatment period with fixed appliances was highly significantly shorter in group I; however, the number of appointments was significantly higher and the total duration of treatment/observation time significantly longer. 2. In both groups the reduction in PAR score was either improved or greatly improved in all cases.     

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.     

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.     

Science versus empiricism

Few debates within dentistry have aroused such strong feelings as the issue of orthodontic growth guidance. Most orthodontists consider that appliances have little influence beyond the teeth and alveolus. If there is not room, it is argued, extractions are inevitable. Despite this a sizable minority, mostly of general dentists, believe that it is possible to influence skeletal form significantly. Why is there such lack of consensus?     

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.     

Orthodontists' perceptions of the impact of phase 1 treatment for Class II malocclusion on phase 2 needs

The most appropriate timing for the treatment of Class II malocclusions is controversial. Some clinicians advocate starting a first phase in the mixed dentition, followed by a phase 2 in the permanent dentition. Others see no clear advantage to that approach and recommend that the entire treatment be done in the late mixed or early permanent dentition. This study examines how orthodontists, blinded to treatment approach, perceive the impact of phase 1 treatment on phase 2 needs. The sample consisted of 242 Class II subjects, aged 10 to 15, who had completed phase 1 or observation in a randomized clinical trial (RCT). For each subject, video orthodontic records, a questionnaire, a fact sheet, and a cephalometric tracing were sent to five randomly selected reviewing orthodontists blinded to subject group and study purpose. Reviewing orthodontists were asked to assess treatment need, general approach, need for extractions, priority, difficulty, and determinants. Orthodontists agreed highly on treatment need (95%) and moderately on treatment approach (84%) and extraction need (80%). They did not perceive differences in need, approach, or extractions between treated and control groups. Treated subjects were judged as less difficult (p = 0.0001) and to have a lower treatment priority (p = 0.0001) than controls. In ranking problems that affect treatment decisions, the orthodontists ranked dental Class II (p = 0.005) and skeletal relationships (p = 0.004) more highly in control than in treated patients. These data indicate that orthodontists do not perceive phase 1 treatment for Class II as preventing the need for a second phase or as offering any particular advantage with respect to preventing the need for extractions or other skeletal treatments in that second phase. They do view early Class II treatment as an effective means of reducing the difficulty of and priority for phase 2.     

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.     

Pre-prosthetic orthodontics

For some patients, pre-prosthetic orthodontic intervention is necessary to optimize both esthetic and functional aspects of dental treatment. This review will focus on the following topics: orthodontics treatment with multiple missing teeth, correction of anterior deep vertical overlap, anterior worn dentition, up-righting of tilted teeth, and orthodontic crown lengthening. This review will aid restorative dentists in identifying which patients could benefit from orthodontic intervention, and in understanding how orthodontic treatment can be utilized to improve patient prognosis in restorative treatment.     

Origins of the extraction controversey in American orthodontics (1880-1910)

Extraction of permanent teeth in the course of orthodontic treatment remains controversial. Today, opinions vary widely as to how frequently such extractions are necessary. Many dentists appreciate, however, that in the 1920s and 1930s, orthodontists virtually never prescribed extraction. The movement to abolish extraction therapy in orthodontics really began in the late Nineteenth Century. Led by Edward H. Angle, this "New School of Orthodontics," despite an explosion of activity during the first decade of the Twentieth Century, did not rapidly succeed in its mission. During the period considered in this study, dentists continued to extract teeth to treat orthodontic problems and even many experts in orthodontics continued to vociferously defend this practice. Claims of the extremists, whether in favor of or against extraction, did not benefit from true scientific evidence. Dentists based their theories on experience or mere conjecture. The situation today is not very different. Before taking an unqualified stand on the issue of extraction, one should realize that, historically, such stands have proven unconvincing. The fashion of a period may favor one side over the other only for the situation to reverse in the next period.     

Factors associated with long-term patient satisfaction

Objective:To identify factors associated with patient satisfaction at least 5 years after orthodontic treatment.Materials and Methods:A total of 209 orthodontic patients were included in the study. All subjects were treated with upper and lower fixed orthodontic appliances. Dental casts (n  =  627) were examined using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index pretreatment (T1), at the end of treatment (T2) and at a long-term follow-up (mean, 8.5 years; T3). At T3, a Dental Impact on Daily Living questionnaire was used to assess the long-term effects of orthodontic treatment on daily living and satisfaction with the dentition. Multiple regression analyses were used to quantify associations between patient satisfaction and changes produced by the orthodontic treatment (PAR T2-T1), posttreatment stability (PAR T3), age at the start of treatment (T1), treatment duration (T2-T1), gender, and extraction.Results:Orthodontic treatment produced a significant improvement of 94.2% in the PAR Index (T2-T1), but this change was not associated with the level of satisfaction when the patient was questioned at least 5 years after treatment. Regression analysis showed that satisfaction was significantly associated only with the long-term posttreatment PAR index (r²  =  0.125, P < .0001). No significant association was observed with the severity of malocclusion at the beginning (PAR-T1) or end of the orthodontic treatment (PAR-T2), age at T1, the amount of time taken during orthodontic treatment, gender, or extraction.Conclusions:Over the long term, patient satisfaction is slightly associated with the stability of the orthodontic treatment regardless of the initial occlusal condition or the final result of the orthodontic treatment.     

Inequalities in the dental treatment provided to children: an example from the UK

OBJECTIVES: To identify the relationship between the socioeconomic status of frequently attending children and the dental care of their primary dentition provided by dentists working in the General Dental Service (GDS) of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: The study design involved a retrospective investigation of the case notes of 658 children who were regularly attending patients of 50 General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) working in the North West of England. The socioeconomic status of each subject was measured using the Townsend score of their electoral ward of residence. Logistic regression models, taking into account the clustering of the subjects within dental practices, were fitted to identify whether or not socioeconomic status was significantly associated with the proportion of carious teeth that were restored, all dental extractions, dental extractions for pain or sepsis alone and courses of antibiotics prescribed after controlling other variables. RESULTS: A significant association between socioeconomic status and caries experience could not be found. There was also no association between socioeconomic status and the proportion of carious teeth filled or courses of antibiotics prescribed. Disadvantaged children were significantly more likely to have teeth extracted than their more affluent peers, but there was no association between deprivation and extractions for pain or sepsis alone. CONCLUSIONS: Children from deprived backgrounds who regularly attended this group of UK dentists were more likely to have extractions than their more affluent peers, irrespective of their caries experience.