Julian Woolley , Natasha Wright , Maurice J. Meade
{"title":"Usage of temporary anchorage devices: A cross-cultural and cross-sectional survey of orthodontists in Australia and the UK","authors":"Julian Woolley , Natasha Wright , Maurice J. Meade","doi":"10.1016/j.ortho.2023.100843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Detailed insight regarding the use of temporary anchorage devices (TAD) in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) is lacking. The primary aim of the present cross-sectional survey was to investigate TAD usage among UK-based and Australian-based orthodontists. The secondary objectives were to compare TAD-related preferences and protocols between orthodontists in the two countries.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A pilot-tested electronic questionnaire was distributed to members of the British Orthodontic<span> Society and the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions pertained to their demographic details, and current use of TADs including protocols, treatment objectives and factors influencing their use.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>A total of 192 responses were recorded (Australia: 122; UK: 70). One hundred and forty-two respondents (74.0%) reported using TADs as part of their orthodontic treatment, 77.0% in Australia (</span><em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->94) and 68.6% in the UK (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->48). Molar protraction was the most common procedure for which TADs were reportedly used (Australia: <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->118; 87.2%, UK: <em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->36; 75.0%). “Loosening” was the most prevalent reported complication overall (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->124; 90.1%). “Confidence”, “insufficient postgraduate education” and “availability of equipment” were the factors that most influenced the decision not to provide TADs.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Most orthodontists in both countries provided TADs. TAD protocols of orthodontists in both countries were reported. Similarities and differences regarding TAD-related clinical practices and procedures, complications and factors influencing the use of TADs and reasons for not using TADs were explored. Information from the present study can provide baseline data for future related studies in each country and for comparison of TAD usage in other countries.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45449,"journal":{"name":"International Orthodontics","volume":"22 2","pages":"Article 100843"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1761722723001225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Detailed insight regarding the use of temporary anchorage devices (TAD) in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) is lacking. The primary aim of the present cross-sectional survey was to investigate TAD usage among UK-based and Australian-based orthodontists. The secondary objectives were to compare TAD-related preferences and protocols between orthodontists in the two countries.
Methods
A pilot-tested electronic questionnaire was distributed to members of the British Orthodontic Society and the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions pertained to their demographic details, and current use of TADs including protocols, treatment objectives and factors influencing their use.
Results
A total of 192 responses were recorded (Australia: 122; UK: 70). One hundred and forty-two respondents (74.0%) reported using TADs as part of their orthodontic treatment, 77.0% in Australia (n = 94) and 68.6% in the UK (n = 48). Molar protraction was the most common procedure for which TADs were reportedly used (Australia: n = 118; 87.2%, UK: n = 36; 75.0%). “Loosening” was the most prevalent reported complication overall (n = 124; 90.1%). “Confidence”, “insufficient postgraduate education” and “availability of equipment” were the factors that most influenced the decision not to provide TADs.
Conclusions
Most orthodontists in both countries provided TADs. TAD protocols of orthodontists in both countries were reported. Similarities and differences regarding TAD-related clinical practices and procedures, complications and factors influencing the use of TADs and reasons for not using TADs were explored. Information from the present study can provide baseline data for future related studies in each country and for comparison of TAD usage in other countries.
导言：关于澳大利亚和英国临时固定装置（TAD）的使用情况还缺乏详细的了解。本次横断面调查的主要目的是调查英国和澳大利亚正畸医师的 TAD 使用情况。方法：向英国正畸学会和澳大利亚正畸学会的会员发放了一份经过试验测试的电子问卷。问题涉及他们的人口统计学细节、目前对 TAD 的使用情况，包括治疗方案、治疗目标和影响其使用的因素。结果 共收到 192 份回复（澳大利亚：122 份；英国：70 份）。142名受访者（74.0%）称使用TADs作为正畸治疗的一部分，其中澳大利亚为77.0%（n=94），英国为68.6%（n=48）。据报告，臼齿牵引是使用 TADs 的最常见程序（澳大利亚：n = 118；87.2%；英国：n = 36；75.0%）。"松动 "是最常见的并发症（124 人；90.1%）。"信心"、"研究生教育不足 "和 "设备可用性 "是影响不提供 TAD 的最大因素。两国正畸医生的 TAD 协议均有报道。研究探讨了与 TAD 相关的临床实践和程序、并发症、影响使用 TAD 的因素以及不使用 TAD 的原因等方面的异同。本研究提供的信息可为两国今后的相关研究提供基线数据，也可用于比较其他国家的 TAD 使用情况。
期刊介绍：
Une revue de référence dans le domaine de orthodontie et des disciplines frontières Your reference in dentofacial orthopedics International Orthodontics adresse aux orthodontistes, aux dentistes, aux stomatologistes, aux chirurgiens maxillo-faciaux et aux plasticiens de la face, ainsi quà leurs assistant(e)s. International Orthodontics is addressed to orthodontists, dentists, stomatologists, maxillofacial surgeons and facial plastic surgeons, as well as their assistants.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
