American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics · 2022
A survey of orthodontic clear aligner practices among orthodontists.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Meade Maurice J, Weir Tony
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to survey orthodontic clear aligner therapy (CAT) practices among orthodontists in Australia.
METHODS: A pilot-tested electronic questionnaire was distributed to 434 full members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions were related to demographics, use and choice of aligners, digital treatment planning, patient selection, treatment protocols, refinements/finishing, retention, and patient-reported aligner issues. Factors regarding the decision not to provide CAT were also surveyed.
RESULTS: The response rate was 54.6%. Most orthodontists (93.13%) provided CAT, which made up 24.17% of their annual orthodontic caseload. The median percentage of initial digital treatment plans (DTP) approved without changes was 0, with 4-6 changes reported by 24.14%. Orthodontists reported a mean of 2.02 ± 1.76 refinements per patient. Orthodontists were least comfortable treating patients with bilateral crossbite (71.28%) and deep overbite (62.56%). DTP challenges regarding tooth attachments and tooth positions and issues regarding patient compliance with CAT wear protocols were commonly reported. More than 1 CAT system was used by most (63.92%), with in-house systems used by 21.63%. Orthodontists rarely or never (63.68%) performed premolar extraction treatment with CAT. Adjunctive interproximal reduction was reportedly mostly carried out to relieve crowding and reduce open gingival embrasures. The view that fixed appliances provide better outcomes was a major influence (71.43%) on the decision for those who did not provide any CAT.
CONCLUSIONS: CAT practices among orthodontists varied. Further research is required to investigate the challenges in effective CAT provision highlighted in this survey.
METHODS: A pilot-tested electronic questionnaire was distributed to 434 full members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions were related to demographics, use and choice of aligners, digital treatment planning, patient selection, treatment protocols, refinements/finishing, retention, and patient-reported aligner issues. Factors regarding the decision not to provide CAT were also surveyed.
RESULTS: The response rate was 54.6%. Most orthodontists (93.13%) provided CAT, which made up 24.17% of their annual orthodontic caseload. The median percentage of initial digital treatment plans (DTP) approved without changes was 0, with 4-6 changes reported by 24.14%. Orthodontists reported a mean of 2.02 ± 1.76 refinements per patient. Orthodontists were least comfortable treating patients with bilateral crossbite (71.28%) and deep overbite (62.56%). DTP challenges regarding tooth attachments and tooth positions and issues regarding patient compliance with CAT wear protocols were commonly reported. More than 1 CAT system was used by most (63.92%), with in-house systems used by 21.63%. Orthodontists rarely or never (63.68%) performed premolar extraction treatment with CAT. Adjunctive interproximal reduction was reportedly mostly carried out to relieve crowding and reduce open gingival embrasures. The view that fixed appliances provide better outcomes was a major influence (71.43%) on the decision for those who did not provide any CAT.
CONCLUSIONS: CAT practices among orthodontists varied. Further research is required to investigate the challenges in effective CAT provision highlighted in this survey.