Orthodontic treatment by general practitioners in consultation with orthodontists--a survey of appliances recommended by Swedish orthodontists
- PMID: 25796806
Orthodontic treatment by general practitioners in consultation with orthodontists--a survey of appliances recommended by Swedish orthodontists
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to disclose the treatment procedures most frequently recommended by Swedish orthodontists for use by general practitioners and to determine whether these recommendations are reflected in the undergraduate dental program in orthodontics at Malmö University. Potential differences between the ortho- dontists' recommendations were also investigated. A questionnaire was sent to 169 consulting orthodontists, seeking their recommenda- tions for appliance therapy to be undertaken by general practitioners: 129 (63 males and 66 females) responded. The Quad Helix was the appliance most commonly recommended for correction of posterior crossbite, a plate with Z-springs for correction of anterior crossbite and the headgear activator for correction of Class II malocclusions. A significant gender difference was disclosed with respect to orthodontists' recommendations for treatment of Class II malocclusions by general practitioners, namely that female orthodontists recommended the headgear activator more frequently than males. However, this difference is most likely attributable to the gender distribution among orthodontists qualifying as specialists during the last five decades: more recently qualified orthodontists are predominantly female. The choice of appliances corresponded well with undergraduate training in orthodontics at the Faculty of Odontology in Malmö.
Similar articles
-
Orthodontists' views on indications for and timing of orthodontic treatment in Finnish public oral health care.Eur J Orthod. 2008 Feb;30(1):46-51. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm085. Epub 2007 Oct 25. Eur J Orthod. 2008. PMID: 17962314
-
Orthodontic treatment provision and referral preferences among New Zealand general dental practitioners.Aust Orthod J. 2011 Nov;27(2):145-54. Aust Orthod J. 2011. PMID: 22372271
-
Influence of economic restraints and reduced specialist resources on delivery and quality of orthodontic care.Swed Dent J. 2000;24(4):165-72. Swed Dent J. 2000. PMID: 11140543
-
Class II correction-reducing patient compliance: a review of the available techniques.J Orthod. 2000 Sep;27(3):219-25. doi: 10.1179/ortho.27.3.219. J Orthod. 2000. PMID: 11099554 Review.
-
[Functional appliances. Possibility of correction of a class II malocclusion].Rev Belge Med Dent (1984). 1989;44(3):70-84. Rev Belge Med Dent (1984). 1989. PMID: 2697042 Review. French.
Cited by
-
Pain and discomfort during the first week of maxillary expansion using two different expanders: patient-reported outcomes in a randomized controlled trial.Eur J Orthod. 2023 May 31;45(3):271-280. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjac067. Eur J Orthod. 2023. PMID: 36331513 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Skeletal effects of posterior crossbite treatment with either quad helix or rapid maxillary expansion: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.Angle Orthod. 2024 Sep 1;94(5):512-521. doi: 10.2319/010424-9.1. Angle Orthod. 2024. PMID: 39230018 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Posterior crossbite corrections in the early mixed dentition with quad helix or rapid maxillary expander: a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial.Eur J Orthod. 2024 Jun 1;46(3):cjae028. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjae028. Eur J Orthod. 2024. PMID: 38808562 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical