Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026
A Cross-Sectional Survey of Orthodontic Retention Practices and Opinions Among General Dental Practitioners in Australia.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Meade Maurice J, Dreyer Craig
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate orthodontic retention opinions and practices of general dental practitioners (GDPs) in Australia.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A piloted electronic survey was distributed to dentists via Australian Dental Association communication channels. Survey questions related to respondent demographics, opinions regarding preferred retainer choice and protocols, factors concerning retainer choice and the management of retainers.
RESULTS: Data from 683 GDP respondents were received and analyzed. Most (n = 351; 51.4%) indicated that they offered no orthodontic treatment services whereas 332 (48.6%) offered limited or comprehensive orthodontics. The clear plastic retainer and bonded retainer (BR) combined was most prescribed by GDPs in the maxilla (40.0%-45.5%) and mandible (40.6%-52.4%). GDPs who offered orthodontic services were more likely (p < 0.01) to always or mostly replace or repair (p < 0.01) BRs than those who did not. Between 57.8% and 61.2% of respondents were very or somewhat concerned that BRs may be associated with periodontal problems over the long term. Most (n = 445; 83%) indicated that they would like the treating orthodontist to inform them that treatment had been completed. Between 68.1% and 72.2% would like to be informed by the orthodontist about patients' retention protocols. Respondents who offered orthodontic services were more likely to recommend patients bring their removable retainers to review or treatment appointments (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Differences in opinion regarding the management of the retention phase between GDPs in Australia who offered orthodontic services and those who did not were observed. It is essential that the orthodontic profession develop guidance and education regarding the management of the retention phase.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A piloted electronic survey was distributed to dentists via Australian Dental Association communication channels. Survey questions related to respondent demographics, opinions regarding preferred retainer choice and protocols, factors concerning retainer choice and the management of retainers.
RESULTS: Data from 683 GDP respondents were received and analyzed. Most (n = 351; 51.4%) indicated that they offered no orthodontic treatment services whereas 332 (48.6%) offered limited or comprehensive orthodontics. The clear plastic retainer and bonded retainer (BR) combined was most prescribed by GDPs in the maxilla (40.0%-45.5%) and mandible (40.6%-52.4%). GDPs who offered orthodontic services were more likely (p < 0.01) to always or mostly replace or repair (p < 0.01) BRs than those who did not. Between 57.8% and 61.2% of respondents were very or somewhat concerned that BRs may be associated with periodontal problems over the long term. Most (n = 445; 83%) indicated that they would like the treating orthodontist to inform them that treatment had been completed. Between 68.1% and 72.2% would like to be informed by the orthodontist about patients' retention protocols. Respondents who offered orthodontic services were more likely to recommend patients bring their removable retainers to review or treatment appointments (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Differences in opinion regarding the management of the retention phase between GDPs in Australia who offered orthodontic services and those who did not were observed. It is essential that the orthodontic profession develop guidance and education regarding the management of the retention phase.