Journal of Orthodontics最新文献

Objective: To compare the sagittal and vertical cephalometric effects in participants treated with an expander with differential opening (EDO) versus the fan-type expander (FE).

Design: Two-arm parallel randomised clinical trial (RCT).

Methods: This study comprised cone-beam computed tomography-derived cephalometric images from 48 participants from a RCT. The sample was randomly allocated into two groups. The study was single-blinded. In total, 24 participants were treated with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using EDO and 24 participants underwent RME using FE. The primary outcomes were the dentoskeletal vertical changes produced by RME. The secondary outcomes were the dentoskeletal sagittal changes. A cephalometric analysis was performed before treatment and 1 or 6 months after the active phase of RME using Dolphin Imaging Software. Intergroup comparisons of interphase changes were performed using the t-test and Mann-Whitney U test (P < 0.05).

Results: The final sample comprised 24 patients (11 men, 13 women; mean age = 7.6 ± 0.9 years) in the EDO group and 24 patients (10 men, 14 women; mean age = 7.8 ± 0.9 years) in the FE group. Both expanders produced a similar clockwise rotation of the mandible (FMA; mean difference [MD] = 0.09°, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.01 to 0.84). In the FE group, a greater increase of the SNA angle was observed after expansion compared to the EDO group (MD = 1.04°, 95% CI = -1.90 to -1.58). A greater palatal torque of maxillary incisors was observed in the FE group (MD = 1.32°, 95% CI = 0.05-2.56). Of the participants, 54% reported a little discomfort during the active phase of treatment and 46% of the participants did not report any discomfort.

Conclusion: Both expanders produced similar vertical cephalometric changes. FEs caused slightly more maxillary anterior displacement after expansion with a compensatory palatal torque of the maxillary incisors compared to the EDOs. However, the amount of sagittal difference was not clinically relevant.

Trial registration: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, under the identifier NCT03705871.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the quality, reliability and usability of information on the Internet regarding hypodontia.

Method: A survey of patients with hypodontia revealed seven key search terms favoured by patients: Hypodontia; Congenitally missing teeth; Missing teeth; Gaps in teeth; Cure of missing teeth; Information on missing teeth; and Treatment of missing teeth. These were entered into four search engines: Google; Ask; Wikipedia; and NHS Choices. Relevant websites were assessed for their overall demographics, author type, country of origin and rank within the search engine. They were then analysed using five validated assessment tools. Intra-examiner reliability was assessed, and statistical analysis of the data was undertaken.

Results: Good intra-examiner reliability was observed. A total of 48 websites were included for analysis from an initial 1718. There was no relationship between the ranking of a website on a search engine and the quality of information it contained. When medical search terminology was used, it resulted in websites of better quality than layperson search terms. Most websites were produced by general dental or specialist dental practices but the quality of these was poorer than those developed by private companies and medical organisations. The country of origin was primarily the USA and UK; however, this had no relationship to website quality. Overall, the majority of websites scored poorly for the validated tools and none scored well across multiple tools. A statistical analysis showed a positive relationship between the LIDA and DISCERN instruments but no other correlation between other validated tools was found.

Conclusion: The quality and reliability of information on the Internet regarding hypodontia is generally poor. There is a need for a reliable online hypodontia resource that can be recommended for patient use.

Background: Orthognathic clinics across England are currently run in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) format. It is, however, likely that there is a large variation in the style of these clinics and care pathways for orthognathic patients across the country. This was a cross-sectional, online questionnaire with a primary aim to obtain information on the way orthognathic care is currently delivered throughout England. The secondary objectives were to determine the compliance to the minimum dataset for record collection. The questionnaire, disseminated to orthodontic consultants, detailed 27 items split into waiting lists for new patients, mechanics of the clinic, support for patients and record collection.

Results: A total of 36 participants responded (one was excluded) to give a total of 35 questionnaire responses. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Of the participants, 34% followed up their patients as per the commissioning guidelines at 1, 2 and 5 years after treatment. Of the participants, 20% said patients' mental health would be screened before adding them to a waiting list, with 26% of participants stating screening was not undertaken for all patients. Of the participants, 11% had available access to psychological support during the MDT meeting and 20% recorded the minimum dataset at the follow-up intervals.

Conclusion: There are inconsistencies in the orthognathic MDT design across England. Acceptance criteria, support services available and records collected for patients showed substantial variation, highlighting the limited guidance offered by the commissioning guidelines and the potential need to revise the minimum dataset.

Objective: To highlight the potential environmental impact of different aspects of orthodontic care in the United Kingdom, outline the major barriers and challenges to reducing this impact, and summarise the possible action that could help the orthodontic community to tackle the climate change crisis.

Impact: Travel, procurement and supply, material use, waste management, energy use and water consumption within dentistry have a considerable effect on the environment. There are, however, marked knowledge gaps pertaining to the impact of orthodontic treatment.

Challenges: The lack of awareness of the NHS contribution to the carbon footprint and net-zero goals among healthcare workers, the NHS backlogs and budget cuts, and cross-infection control requirements particularly following the COVID-19 pandemic are some of the many challenges to making healthcare delivery more sustainable.

Opportunities: By considering the triple bottom line (social, environmental and economic), incorporating the four Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Rethink), taking practical action, including steps to educate ourselves and the wider team, and to promote research on environmental sustainability, we can get one step closer to reaching the NHS net-zero goals.

Conclusion: Climate change is a global health threat with multiple contributors associated with orthodontic treatment delivery, which can be tackled on an individual, organisational and system level.

Objective: The aim of the study was to explore the orthodontist's perspective of the strengths and weaknesses of their current multidisciplinary team (MDT) design for orthognathic treatment.

Participants and methods: This was a qualitative study using online interviews of orthodontic consultants across England. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. This was the second part of a two-part study, where the first part, an online questionnaire survey, identified the variation in design of orthognathic MDTs across England and was the source of the 19 participants for this study.

Results: Seven themes were identified that influenced the design of orthognathic MDTs across England. Close working relationship with the team, access to closed surgery space to conduct the MDT and access to 3D planning were identified as definite strengths of some MDT clinics. Lack of a team psychologist and long waiting lists were identified as weaknesses of some orthognathic MDTs. Teaching and training within MDT clinics were highlighted as a strength of MDTs where surgery spaces were not restricted due to the pandemic. Finally, there was general agreement about revising the orthognathic minimum dataset for records collection as it was not thought to be in the patient's best interest.

Conclusion: This study was able to identify key areas considered to be determinants of a successful orthognathic MDT design from the orthodontic consultant's perspective. Orthodontic consultants across England prioritised the need for a psychologist in the orthognathic MDT to improve the effectiveness of these clinics.