Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) · 2024
Towards Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Surveying Dentists' and Orthodontists' Perspectives on Orofacial Myofunctional Disorders and Therapy.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Van der Straeten Charis, Philibert Quinten, Bettens Kim, Verbeke Jolien, De Pauw Guy, Van Lierde Kristiane M
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Children with malocclusion, combined with orofacial myofunctional disorders (OMDs), show increased risk of developing orthodontic problems and needs later in life. Speech-language therapists typically provide orofacial myofunctional therapy (OMT) after referral by dentists, orthodontists or ENT specialists. Interdisciplinary treatment is often advisable to prevent relapse after orthodontic treatment. OMDs and OMT are often found to be controversial topics by dentistry professionals. This study aimed to investigate self-reported knowledge and attitudes of Flemish dentists and orthodontists towards OMDs and OMT.
METHODS: A survey containing 32 items on demographics, self-reported knowledge of OMDs and OMT, attitudes towards OMDs, OMT, and its use in clinical practice, and referral behaviour was filled out by 48 general dentists (48/79, 61%) and 31 orthodontists (31/79, 39%). The impact of specialization, degree of experience and educational programme was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of all participants (44/79) reported insufficient to non-existent knowledge of OMT. Nevertheless, the general attitude towards the use of OMT was neutral (47%, 37/79) to (very) positive (48%, 38/79). Although they found correct, evidence-based knowledge on OMDs and OMT important, the majority indicated their formal training did not provide adequate information on OMDs (52%, 41/79) and OMT (62%, 49/79). Specialization showed significant effects, as orthodontists reported themselves knowledgeable on this topic significantly more often than general dentists (p < 0.001), and generally reported a more positive stance towards OMT (p = 0.022).
CONCLUSION: Dentists and orthodontists indicated a general interest in the topic of OMDs and OMT, alongside an overall lack of information provided by formal education. Current findings suggest the necessity of re-evaluating current curricula on OMDs and OMT.
METHODS: A survey containing 32 items on demographics, self-reported knowledge of OMDs and OMT, attitudes towards OMDs, OMT, and its use in clinical practice, and referral behaviour was filled out by 48 general dentists (48/79, 61%) and 31 orthodontists (31/79, 39%). The impact of specialization, degree of experience and educational programme was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of all participants (44/79) reported insufficient to non-existent knowledge of OMT. Nevertheless, the general attitude towards the use of OMT was neutral (47%, 37/79) to (very) positive (48%, 38/79). Although they found correct, evidence-based knowledge on OMDs and OMT important, the majority indicated their formal training did not provide adequate information on OMDs (52%, 41/79) and OMT (62%, 49/79). Specialization showed significant effects, as orthodontists reported themselves knowledgeable on this topic significantly more often than general dentists (p < 0.001), and generally reported a more positive stance towards OMT (p = 0.022).
CONCLUSION: Dentists and orthodontists indicated a general interest in the topic of OMDs and OMT, alongside an overall lack of information provided by formal education. Current findings suggest the necessity of re-evaluating current curricula on OMDs and OMT.