Dataset Information

A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Use of Clear Aligners by General Dentists in Australia.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The primary aim of the investigation was to survey clear aligner therapy (CAT) use among general dentists in Australia. A secondary aim was to evaluate the factors that influenced general dentists in Australia not to provide CAT.

Material and methods

General dentists registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency were invited to participate in a structured cross-sectional electronic survey. The survey covered demographics, preferred CAT systems and practices, relevant treatment planning and retention protocols, patient-reported CAT issues, pertinent respondent opinions, and reasons for not providing CAT. Descriptive statistics were computed via GraphPad Prism v10 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).

Results

Most of the 264 (n = 172; 65.2%) respondents indicated that they provided CAT. The majority (n = 82; 58.6%) reported that they treated between 1 and 20 patients with CAT annually. Invisalign was the most used system (n = 83; 61.2%), with 55 (41.7%), indicating that they used more than one system. Most (n = 124; 98.4%) were comfortable using CAT for mild crowding, whereas 73.4% (n = 94) were not comfortable in treating severe crowding with CAT. The median (IQR) number of patients per respondent treated with extraction of a permanent incisor or premolar was 0 (0). Issues regarding tooth positions were reportedly always or mostly in need of change in the initial treatment plan by 68.7%. Problems regarding patient compliance with CAT wear protocols (n = 67; 45.6%) and the predictability of treatment outcomes (n = 31; 21.1%) were the most identified themes of the free-text comments. Over 80% of those who did not provide CAT indicated that they preferred to refer to an orthodontist for management.

Conclusion

Almost two-thirds of the respondents provided CAT. Invisalign was the most used system. The majority use CAT combined with nonextraction treatment. Most of those who did not provide CAT preferred to refer to an orthodontist for patient management.

SUBMITTER: Meade MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11228346 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Use of Clear Aligners by General Dentists in Australia.

Meade Maurice J MJ Weir Tony T

Clinical and experimental dental research 20240801 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>The primary aim of the investigation was to survey clear aligner therapy (CAT) use among general dentists in Australia. A secondary aim was to evaluate the factors that influenced general dentists in Australia not to provide CAT.<h4>Material and methods</h4>General dentists registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency were invited to participate in a structured cross-sectional electronic survey. The survey covered demographics, preferred CAT systems and ...[more]

PMID: 38973205

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNumerous studies of dental antibiotic prescribing show that overprescribing is a worldwide occurrence. The aim of this study was to assess prescribing practices of general dentists in Australia for antibiotics, analgesics and anxiolytics and to determine the extent to which prescribing is in accordance with current guidelines.MethodsA structured questionnaire was sent to 1468 dentists in Victoria and Queensland in July-August 2018. The questionnaire covered demographics, clinical conditions where dentists prescribe antibiotics, non-clinical factors which influence prescribing, and medicines for anxiolysis and pain relief. Responses were scored using a system based on the current Australian therapeutic guidelines. Logistic regression was used to determine the relative importance of independent variables on inappropriate prescribing.ResultsThree hundred eighty-two responses were received. Overall, 55% of overprescribing of antibiotics was detected, with a range of 13-88% on a routine or occasional basis depending on the scenario. Between 16 and 27% of respondents inappropriately preferenced analgesics over anti-inflammatories for dental pain; 46% of those who prescribed anxiolytic medicines did so inappropriately, with varying regimens and choices outside the guidelines. Years of practice was the main demographic factor influencing prescribing, with recent graduates (0-5 years) generally scoring better than their colleagues for antibiotic prescribing (p < 0.05).ConclusionsFuture interventions could be directed towards the appropriate role and use of antibiotics, shortfalls in knowledge and appropriate choices of medicines for pain relief and anxiolysis. Given that the most overprescribing occurred for localised swellings (88%), this area could be focused on in continuing education as well as ensuring it is addressed in undergraduate teaching. Continuing education on the appropriate use of medicines can be targeted at more experienced dentists as well as patients, especially those who expect antibiotics instead of treatment.Trial registrationUniversity of Melbourne Human Ethics Sub-Committee; ID: 1750768.1 .

Project description:BackgroundThe prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in conjunction with oral implant surgery remains inconsistent among different populations of dentists. The main objective of this study was to assess the current antibiotic prescribing habits of dentist in conjunction with oral implant surgery in Italy. The secondary objective was to assess the nature and amount (mg) of antibiotics prescriptions in order to evaluate whether any consensus has been reached and if the current recommendations are complied.MethodsObservational cross-sectional study based on a web-survey reported according to the STROBE guidelines. A questionnaire was sent via email to each registered member of the Italian Academy of Osseointegration (n = 400). The email included a link to the anonym web questionnaire developed on www.encuestafacil.com. It contained close-ended and some open-ended questions concerning demographics, antibiotic type, prescription duration and dosage. Collected data were analyzed using STATA® 14 software.Results160 participants responded the survey (response rate = 40%). Approximately 84% routinely prescribed prophylactic antibiotics in conjunction with oral implant surgery, 15.6% prescribed antibiotics in certain situations and only 1 did not prescribe antibiotics at all. Overall, 116 respondents prescribed both pre- and postoperative antibiotics, 29 prescribed antibiotics only preoperatively and 14 prescribed antibiotics exclusively after surgery. Italian dentists prescribed an average amount of 10,331 mg antibiotics before, during or after oral implant surgery. Approximately, only 17% (n = 27) of the participants who prescribed antibiotics before oral implant surgery complied with the recommendations proposed by the latest publications (no more than 3 g of preoperative amoxicillin before oral implant surgery).ConclusionsDentists in Italy on a large scale prescribe antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with oral implant surgery among healthy patients. A high range of prophylactic regimens is prescribed and they are not adhering to the new science-based specifications. Guidelines focused on the indications for prophylactic antibiotics among healthy patients are required to prevent bacterial resistance, side effects and costs caused by overtreatment and the irrational use of antibiotics.

Project description:Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) has varying prevalence rates and risk factors based on cultural, social, and economic backgrounds. However, it is common for IPV victims to be seen in dental settings on a regular basis. Identifying IPV victims in dental settings might help address this overlooked global dilemma. This study was conducted to evaluate general dentists’ readiness and potential barriers to performing IPV screening in a dental setting. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted using the Domestic Violence Healthcare Providers Survey (DVHPS). This validated and structured questionnaire was adopted, modified, and self-administered to evaluate general dentists’ readiness and barriers to IPV screening. General dentists were recruited for the study population from 5 administrative territorial regions in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire consists of 7 domains that assess general dentists’ readiness and barriers to performing IPV screening for all dental patients. Results Out of the 273 dentists approached, a total of 200 participated in the study, with a total response rate of 73.3%. The percentages of female and male dentists were 54% and 46%, respectively. Almost 73% of the study population believed they could identify IPV in a dental setting. The multiple linear regression model indicated a substantial decrease in general dentists’ readiness to perform IPV screening due to fear of offending patients, an increased number of patients treated per day, and professional role resistance. Conclusion The current study suggests the high readiness of general dentists to perform IPV screening for all patients. However, prominent barriers to implementing IPV screening for all patients include fear of offending patients, an increased number of patients treated per day, and professional role resistance. Postgraduate continuous education is encouraged to re-enforce the importance of IPV screening in dental settings. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-022-02627-y.

Dataset Information

A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Use of Clear Aligners by General Dentists in Australia.

Objectives

Material and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Use of Clear Aligners by General Dentists in Australia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets