The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2019
Cleft and Craniofacial Team Orthodontic Care in the United States: A Survey of the ACPA.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Khavanin Nima, Jenny Hillary, Jodeh Diana S, Scott Michelle A, Rottgers S Alex, Steinberg Jordan P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To better understand the capacity for orthodontic care, service features, and finances among members of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA).
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: ACPA-approved multidisciplinary cleft teams.
PARTICIPANTS: Cleft team coordinators.
INTERVENTIONS: Coordinators were asked to complete the survey working together with their orthodontists.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Model for orthodontic care.
RESULTS: Coordinators from 82 out of 167 teams certified by ACPA completed the survey (response rate = 49.1%). Most orthodontists were private practice volunteers (48%) followed by university/hospital employed (22.8%). Care was often delivered in community private practice facilities (44.2%) or combination of university and private practice facilities (39.0%). Half of teams reported offering presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO), with nasoalveolar molding being the most common. Cleft/craniofacial patients typically comprise 25% or less of the orthodontists' practices. The presence of a university/hospital-based orthodontist was associated with higher rates of offering PSIO (P < .001) and an increased percentage dedication of their practice to cleft/craniofacial care (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Orthodontic models across ACPA-certified teams are highly varied. The employment of full-time craniofacial orthodontists is less common but is highly correlated with a practice with a high percentage of cleft care and the offering of advanced services such as PSIO. Future work should focus on how to effectively promote such roles for orthodontists to ensure high-level care for cleft/craniofacial patients requiring treatment from infancy through skeletal maturity.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: ACPA-approved multidisciplinary cleft teams.
PARTICIPANTS: Cleft team coordinators.
INTERVENTIONS: Coordinators were asked to complete the survey working together with their orthodontists.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Model for orthodontic care.
RESULTS: Coordinators from 82 out of 167 teams certified by ACPA completed the survey (response rate = 49.1%). Most orthodontists were private practice volunteers (48%) followed by university/hospital employed (22.8%). Care was often delivered in community private practice facilities (44.2%) or combination of university and private practice facilities (39.0%). Half of teams reported offering presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO), with nasoalveolar molding being the most common. Cleft/craniofacial patients typically comprise 25% or less of the orthodontists' practices. The presence of a university/hospital-based orthodontist was associated with higher rates of offering PSIO (P < .001) and an increased percentage dedication of their practice to cleft/craniofacial care (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Orthodontic models across ACPA-certified teams are highly varied. The employment of full-time craniofacial orthodontists is less common but is highly correlated with a practice with a high percentage of cleft care and the offering of advanced services such as PSIO. Future work should focus on how to effectively promote such roles for orthodontists to ensure high-level care for cleft/craniofacial patients requiring treatment from infancy through skeletal maturity.