Dataset Information

Temporary anchorage device usage: a survey among Swiss orthodontists.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of the survey was to obtain information on the treatment plan preferences, mechanics and characteristics of temporary anchorage device (TAD) application using a single case presented to orthodontists in Switzerland.

Methods

A structured questionnaire to be completed by all study participants with case-specific (treatment plan including mechanics and TAD usage) and general questions (general fixed appliance and TAD usage as well as professional, educational and demographic questions) together with an orthodontic borderline case was utilised. The case was a female adult with dental Class II/2, deep bite and maxillary anterior crowing, who had been treated in childhood with extraction of four premolars and fixed appliance followed by wisdom tooth extraction.

Results

The response rate was 24.4% (108 out of 443). The majority (96.3%, 104) proposed comprehensive treatment, while 3.7% (4) planned only alignment of maxillary teeth. 8.3% (9) included a surgical approach in their treatment plan. An additional 0.9% (1) combined the surgical approach with Class II mechanics. 75.1% (81) decided on distalization on the maxilla using TADs, 7.4% (8) planned various types of Class II appliances and 3.7% (4) combined distalization using TADs or headgear with Class II appliances and surgery. Palatal implants were the most popular choice (70.6%, 60), followed by mini-screws (22.4%, 19) and mini-plates on the infrazygomatic crests (7.0%, 6). The preferred site of TAD insertion showed more variation in sagittal than in transversal dimension, and the median size of mini-screws used was 10.0-mm long (interquartile range (IQR) 2.3 mm) and 2.0-mm wide (IQR 0.3 mm).

Conclusions

Distalization against palatal implants and then distalization against mini-screws were the most popular treatment plans. Preferred site for TAD insertion varied depending on type and size but varied more widely in the sagittal than in the transversal dimension.

SUBMITTER: Markic G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4047490 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Temporary anchorage device usage: a survey among Swiss orthodontists.

Markic Goran G Katsaros Christos C Pandis Nikolaos N Eliades Theodore T

Progress in orthodontics 20140401 1

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of the survey was to obtain information on the treatment plan preferences, mechanics and characteristics of temporary anchorage device (TAD) application using a single case presented to orthodontists in Switzerland.<h4>Methods</h4>A structured questionnaire to be completed by all study participants with case-specific (treatment plan including mechanics and TAD usage) and general questions (general fixed appliance and TAD usage as well as professional, educational and d ...[more]

PMID: 24935644

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInformation on previous traumatic dental injuries is important as they can lead to increased complications during orthodontic treatment and impact the treatment planning and outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge of Jordanian orthodontists in orthodontic management of traumatized permanent teeth.MethodsCross-sectional survey among active registered orthodontists using a questionnaire distributed by hand.ResultsThe study included 139 orthodontists. Nearly half of orthodontists treated between one to three patients with a history of traumatic dental injuries in the past 3 months. Only 43.2% of the participant asked routinely about history of trauma. A vast discrepancy in times waited before orthodontic movement and in the orthodontic management approach of traumatized teeth was noted. A statistically significant negative relationship between age and knowledge level was found (p = 0.002). A significantly higher level of knowledge was found among participants who had fellowship or board certification than those having the high diploma degree (P-0.032) and also who had treated patients with history of dental trauma in the last 3 months than those who did not (p = 0.001).ConclusionsThe knowledge of the surveyed orthodontists in both the recommended observation period before orthodontic treatment and management approaches of traumatized teeth during orthodontic treatment was insufficient. Years of clinical experience significantly affected knowledge, with older participants having lower levels of knowledge. Orthodontists who treated patients with history of dental trauma in the last 3 months had significantly higher knowledge in orthodontic management of traumatized teeth. Orthodontists needs to be aware of the proper timing and strategies on orthodontic management of traumatized permanent teeth to improve the long term prognosis and to reduce further complications during orthodontic treatment through proper management.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to describe and compare CBCT imaging prescription in clinical practice among orthodontists from five countries in Europe and America. Additionally, it investigated factors associated with the prescribing and the use of guidelines for CBCT imaging.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional survey was carried out using an online questionnaire sent to all registered orthodontists in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Romania, and the United States of America (USA). The data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, bivariate tests, and Poisson regression.ResultsThe final sample consisted of 1284 participants. CBCT was prescribed by 84.4% of the participants for selected cases (84.9%), mainly for impacted teeth (92.4%), presurgical planning (54.1%), and root resorption (51.9%). High cost was most frequently the limiting factor for CBCT prescription (55.4%). Only 45.2% of those who were using CBCT imaging reported adhering to guidelines. CBCT imaging prescription was associated with the orthodontists' countries (p < .009, except for Belgium, p = .068), while the use of guidelines was associated with the respondents' country and additional training on CBCT imaging (p < .001).ConclusionsOrthodontists refer patients for CBCT for selected indications (impacted teeth, root resorption, presurgical planning, dentofacial deformities, as suggested by the international guidelines, and also for upper airway and temporomandibular joint evaluation). Many do not adhere to specific guidelines. There are substantial variations between the countries about the orthodontists' referral for CBCT and guideline usage, irrespective of gender. CBCT prescription may be limited by financial barriers, adhering to specific guidelines and prior CBCT training.Clinical relevanceCBCT prescription among orthodontists must be based on prescription criteria and current guidelines. It is advised to improve CBCT education and training to enhance CBCT selection, referral, analysis, and interpretation in orthodontic practice.

Dataset Information

Temporary anchorage device usage: a survey among Swiss orthodontists.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Temporary anchorage device usage: a survey among Swiss orthodontists.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets