正畸拔除实践:澳大利亚正畸医生的横断面调查

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Australasian Orthodontic Journal Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2478/aoj-2022-0013
Maurice J Meade, C. Dreyer
{"title":"正畸拔除实践:澳大利亚正畸医生的横断面调查","authors":"Maurice J Meade, C. Dreyer","doi":"10.2478/aoj-2022-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective To survey Australian-based orthodontists regarding their opinions on their extraction practices. Method A pilot-tested electronic-questionnaire was distributed to 465 members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions pertained to their demographic details, current extraction rates, changes in prescribed orthodontic extraction patterns over the past 5 to 10 years and the factors that may have influenced decisions. Results A response rate of 35.05% was recorded. Orthodontists estimated that they extracted permanent teeth in 21.03% and 22.06% of recently treated adults and children/adolescents presenting with a Class I malocclusion. Respondents were less comfortable carrying out non-extraction treatment in child/adolescent patients (15.4%) than in adult patients (34.7%) when crowding was greater than 6 mm. Most orthodontists (55.89%) who had practiced for more than 5 years believed that the number of patients that were treated by extractions was unchanged over the past 5 to 10 years while 34.55% believed that the proportion had decreased. More experienced orthodontists tended to report increased rather than decreased extraction rates (p = 0.0102). Most of those (88.1–93.17%) who reported decreased extraction rates considered facial aesthetics had a moderate/major influence on their extraction decisions. The increased use of ‘combined’ interproximal reduction (IPR) and arch lengthening in children/adolescents (55.8%) and IPR in adults (85%) was reported by those whose extraction rates had decreased. Conclusions Orthodontists extracted permanent teeth in just over 20% of their patients who presented with a Class I malocclusion. Most orthodontists considered that their extraction rates had not changed over the past 5 to 10 years. The increased use of IPR with or without arch lengthening procedures, was reported by those whose extraction rates had decreased over the same time period.","PeriodicalId":48559,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Orthodontic Journal","volume":"38 1","pages":"227 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Orthodontic extraction practices: a cross-sectional survey of orthodontists in Australia\",\"authors\":\"Maurice J Meade, C. Dreyer\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/aoj-2022-0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective To survey Australian-based orthodontists regarding their opinions on their extraction practices. Method A pilot-tested electronic-questionnaire was distributed to 465 members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions pertained to their demographic details, current extraction rates, changes in prescribed orthodontic extraction patterns over the past 5 to 10 years and the factors that may have influenced decisions. Results A response rate of 35.05% was recorded. Orthodontists estimated that they extracted permanent teeth in 21.03% and 22.06% of recently treated adults and children/adolescents presenting with a Class I malocclusion. Respondents were less comfortable carrying out non-extraction treatment in child/adolescent patients (15.4%) than in adult patients (34.7%) when crowding was greater than 6 mm. Most orthodontists (55.89%) who had practiced for more than 5 years believed that the number of patients that were treated by extractions was unchanged over the past 5 to 10 years while 34.55% believed that the proportion had decreased. More experienced orthodontists tended to report increased rather than decreased extraction rates (p = 0.0102). Most of those (88.1–93.17%) who reported decreased extraction rates considered facial aesthetics had a moderate/major influence on their extraction decisions. The increased use of ‘combined’ interproximal reduction (IPR) and arch lengthening in children/adolescents (55.8%) and IPR in adults (85%) was reported by those whose extraction rates had decreased. Conclusions Orthodontists extracted permanent teeth in just over 20% of their patients who presented with a Class I malocclusion. Most orthodontists considered that their extraction rates had not changed over the past 5 to 10 years. The increased use of IPR with or without arch lengthening procedures, was reported by those whose extraction rates had decreased over the same time period.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48559,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Orthodontic Journal\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"227 - 236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Orthodontic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2022-0013\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Orthodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2022-0013","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要目的调查澳洲正畸医师对拔牙的意见。方法对465名澳大利亚正畸医师协会会员进行电子问卷调查。问题涉及他们的人口统计细节、目前的拔牙率、过去5至10年规定的正畸拔牙模式的变化以及可能影响决定的因素。结果总有效率为35.05%。正畸医生估计,在最近接受治疗的第一类错牙合的成人和儿童/青少年中,分别有21.03%和22.06%的人拔了恒牙。当拥挤度大于6 mm时,儿童/青少年患者(15.4%)比成人患者(34.7%)更不愿意进行非拔牙治疗。执业5年以上的正畸医师中,大多数(55.89%)认为5 ~ 10年间拔牙治疗的患者数量没有变化,34.55%认为比例有所下降。经验丰富的正畸医师倾向于报告拔牙率增加而不是减少(p = 0.0102)。大多数(88.1-93.17%)报告拔牙率下降的人认为面部美学对他们拔牙的决定有中等/主要的影响。据报道,拔牙率下降的儿童/青少年增加使用“联合”近端间复位(IPR)和弓延长(55.8%),成人增加使用IPR(85%)。结论:1类错牙合患者中,正畸医师拔恒牙的比例仅为20%以上。大多数正畸医生认为他们的拔牙率在过去5至10年没有改变。在同一时期,拔牙率下降的患者报告了有或没有弓延长手术的IPR使用增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Orthodontic extraction practices: a cross-sectional survey of orthodontists in Australia
Abstract Objective To survey Australian-based orthodontists regarding their opinions on their extraction practices. Method A pilot-tested electronic-questionnaire was distributed to 465 members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions pertained to their demographic details, current extraction rates, changes in prescribed orthodontic extraction patterns over the past 5 to 10 years and the factors that may have influenced decisions. Results A response rate of 35.05% was recorded. Orthodontists estimated that they extracted permanent teeth in 21.03% and 22.06% of recently treated adults and children/adolescents presenting with a Class I malocclusion. Respondents were less comfortable carrying out non-extraction treatment in child/adolescent patients (15.4%) than in adult patients (34.7%) when crowding was greater than 6 mm. Most orthodontists (55.89%) who had practiced for more than 5 years believed that the number of patients that were treated by extractions was unchanged over the past 5 to 10 years while 34.55% believed that the proportion had decreased. More experienced orthodontists tended to report increased rather than decreased extraction rates (p = 0.0102). Most of those (88.1–93.17%) who reported decreased extraction rates considered facial aesthetics had a moderate/major influence on their extraction decisions. The increased use of ‘combined’ interproximal reduction (IPR) and arch lengthening in children/adolescents (55.8%) and IPR in adults (85%) was reported by those whose extraction rates had decreased. Conclusions Orthodontists extracted permanent teeth in just over 20% of their patients who presented with a Class I malocclusion. Most orthodontists considered that their extraction rates had not changed over the past 5 to 10 years. The increased use of IPR with or without arch lengthening procedures, was reported by those whose extraction rates had decreased over the same time period.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australasian Orthodontic Journal
Australasian Orthodontic Journal Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Australasian Orthodontic Journal (AOJ) is the official scientific publication of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Previously titled the Australian Orthodontic Journal, the name of the publication was changed in 2017 to provide the region with additional representation because of a substantial increase in the number of submitted overseas'' manuscripts. The volume and issue numbers continue in sequence and only the ISSN numbers have been updated. The AOJ publishes original research papers, clinical reports, book reviews, abstracts from other journals, and other material which is of interest to orthodontists and is in the interest of their continuing education. It is published twice a year in November and May. The AOJ is indexed and abstracted by Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) and Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition.
期刊最新文献
Changes in pharyngeal airway space and hyoid bone position after Bionator treatment of skeletal Class II malocclusions Unbalanced cartilage calcification during development contributes to the formation of irregular articular surfaces as revealed by micro-CT images Twenty years of clear aligner therapy: a bibliometric analysis (2002-2022) A comparison of bond strength and adhesive remnant index of 3D-printed and metal orthodontic brackets attached using different adhesives Comparison of infrazygomatic crest bone screw position using a postero-anterior cephalogram versus cone-beam computed tomography: a cross sectional study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1