Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Orthodontics”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Orthodontic concern among 11-year-old children and their parents compared with orthodontic treatment need assessed by index of orthodontic treatment need.

The aims of the study were to compare the opinions of both the children and the parents with an orthodontist's assessment of treatment need, to investigate the children's self-esteem, and parents' opinion of treatment results. The study group of 359 children (51% girls, 49% boys, mean age 10.6 years) and their parents were asked about their opinions in separate questionnaires. The self-esteem of the children was measured by the global negative self-evaluation scale (GSE). An orthodontist assessed the children's dental casts with the index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). Allocated to the dental health component (DHC) of IOTN, 53.2% children had very great to moderate need and 46.8% had little to no need. No sex difference was noted. The children's own assessments of the aesthetic component (AC) of IOTN were closer to the attractive end of the scale than the orthodontist's (p < 0.05). Desire for treatment was more frequent than dissatisfaction with children's occlusion (p < 0.001). The patients' orthodontic concern correlated significantly with both DHC and AC grades (p < 0.001). The children's GSE scores were not correlated to components of IOTN. For children with very great need, high self-esteem was related to orthodontic concern. The parents (90.8%) perceived dental esthetics to be equally important for girls and boys. Most parents (93.0%) thought the results of orthodontic treatment were good. The results indicate meaningful association between orthodontic concern and orthodontic treatment need assessed by IOTN. However, some patients with great need do not express orthodontic concern, whereas others with near ideal occlusion express concern.

Attitude to Health↗

A survey of undergraduate orthodontic training and orthodontic practices by general dental practitioners.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To assess satisfaction with undergraduate orthodontic training, the variety of treatments undertaken in general practice, practitioners' perceived competence in orthodontics and the level of interest in continuing education in orthodontics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to 520 general practitioners in Dublin, Kildare and Wicklow as listed in Irish Dental Council Register of Dentists 2003. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of dentists responded. More than half (54 per cent) of the respondents were satisfied with both academic and clinical aspects of undergraduate training. Twenty-nine percent regularly perform orthodontic treatment. Only 60 percent feel comfortable treating orthodontic emergencies. Over 70 percent have either already attended or aspire to attend further training in orthodontic diagnosis and interceptive orthodontics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that in the greater Dublin area, graduates (those qualified less than 10 years) are increasingly satisfied with undergraduate teaching. Orthodontic treatment is performed regularly in general dental practice with interceptive procedures most often carried out. While ability to deal with orthodontic emergencies is not universal, practitioners do appear confident to perform a variety of orthodontic procedures. Interest in continuing education in orthodontics is very high. Our study indicates that participation in continuing education in orthodontics appears to translate into greater provision of orthodontic care in general practice.

Clinical Competence↗

[Recognition of orthodontic patients and their parents about the orthodontic treatment and results--a questionnaire method].

This study was undertaken to investigate the desire and consciousness of orthodontic patients and their parents on the content and effect of orthodontic treatment. The subjects were 362 post-treatment patients and 353 of their parents, who answered the questionnaires. The following conclusions were obtained: 1. 49% of the patients and 16% of the parents of the patients thought of giving up the treatment while the patients were under the orthodontic treatment. The main reasons were the discomfort of orthodontic appliances, long treatment period, and the absence from school. 2. 55% of the patients felt uneasy about a change of the occlusion for the worse after removal of the orthodontic appliances, and 60-70% of the patients and parents had forgotten the necessity of the retainer after active orthodontic treatment. 3. Both patients and parents hoped to finish the orthodontic treatment by the end of junior high school. 4. About 50% of the parents preferred the university hospital and about 45% preferred a private dental office which was convenient for attending as an outpatient. 5. About 70% of the patients and parents were satisfied with occlusion after orthodontic treatment, and 33% of the patients and 61% of the parents were satisfied with the orofacial appearance after treatment. 6. About 9% of the patients hoped to keep secret their history of orthodontic treatment. 7. About 35% of the patients and 60% of the parents would recommend people with malocclusions to receive orthodontic treatment. About 80% of the patients would make their own children receive the orthodontic treatment if needed. 8. About 90-95% of the patients and parents were pleased with orthodontic treatment.

Humans↗

Bridging and dimensions of sella turcica in subjects treated by surgical-orthodontic means or orthodontics only.

The aim of the study was to compare the incidence of sella turcica bridging and sella turcica dimensions in 150 Caucasian subjects who had combined surgical-orthodontic correction of their malocclusion with a randomly selected group of 150 Caucasian subjects who were treated contemporaneously by orthodontic means only. Pretreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs were scanned and analyzed. A sella turcica bridge was identified as a continuous band of bony tissue extending from the anterior cranial fossa to the posterior cranial fossa. The dimensions of the sella turcica were measured. In the group treated by combined surgical-orthodontic means, the incidence of bridging was 16.7%, whereas it was 7.3% in the orthodontics-only group (P = .012). Significant increases in the mean surface area (P = .02) and mean perimeter of the sella turcica (P = .01) were found for the combined surgical-orthodontic group compared with the orthodontics-only group. The mean interclinoid distance was significantly smaller in the surgical-orthodontic group (P = .02). These findings appear to indicate the greater likelihood of sella turcica bridging and abnormal sella turcica dimensions in subjects treated by combined surgical-orthodontic means rather than by orthodontics only.

Cephalometry↗

Orthodontic concern of parents compared with orthodontic treatment need assessed by Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) in Ibadan, Nigeria.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the concerns for orthodontic treatment by parents of adolescents in Ibadan, Nigeria for their children, and to compare the observations with objectively determined orthodontic treatment need using DAI. A total of 271 students aged 12-18 years (mean 14.8 +/- 1.1) drawn from five secondary schools in Ibadan were clinically examined while their parents were asked about their opinions in a questionnaire. About 61.3% of the adolescents had normal or minor malocclusions needing no treatment. The rest needed orthodontic treatments ranging from definite to mandatory treatment needs. No sex difference was noted (P > 0.05). Their psychosocial treatment need indicated by parental orthodontic concern revealed that 86% of them needed no orthodontic treatment. Most parents (87.1%) perceived dental aesthetics to be equally important for girls and boys and no sex difference was observed in their orthodontic concern (P > 0.05). Parents orthodontic concern had significant weak correlation with DAI scores. The results suggest a need for more orthodontic awareness in our community and confirm that there is a difference of opinion on orthodontic treatment need between laypersons and orthodontists, as would be expected.

Adolescent↗

Index of orthodontic treatment need as a predictor of orthodontic treatment uptake.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN) could be weighted by using consumer-based sociodental measures to predict the uptake of orthodontic services. METHODS: The sample consisted of 525 schoolchildren, 11 to 12 years old, from Greater Manchester, United Kingdom. Child-perceived IOTN aesthetic component (AC), examiner IOTN AC and dental health component, and child socioeconomic status (Townsend score) were recorded. Two consumer sociodental measures (utility and oral aesthetic subjective impact scale values) were recorded. Three years later, the proportion of the subjects who had received orthodontic treatment or were on a waiting list for orthodontic treatment was recorded, and the rate of service uptake was determined. RESULTS: Sociodental indicators did not predict uptake of orthodontic services. A child with higher normative clinical treatment need was 3 times more likely to receive orthodontic treatment than a child with low clinical need (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Consumer-based sociodental information does not predict future use of orthodontic services. Factors such as clinical IOTN and child-perceived IOTN AC will adequately predict use of orthodontic services.

Adolescent↗

Appropriateness of orthodontic referrals: self-perceived and normative treatment needs of patients referred for orthodontic consultation.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this prospective study were to evaluate the self-perceived and normative orthodontic treatment needs of children referred for orthodontic consultation and to determine the proportion of children who were inappropriately referred. METHODS: The sample consisted of 257 children with a mean age of 12.0 years (SD = 2.4). An orthodontist assessed the children's normative treatment need using the dental health component (DHC) of the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN), and for patients in the mixed dentition the need for interceptive treatment was assessed. Questionnaires were answered by both the child and the parent to assess satisfaction with dental appearance and desire for treatment. RESULTS: The distribution of the IOTN grades showed that 73% of the children had definite need while 27% had borderline/no need for orthodontic treatment. Twenty-six per cent of children and 17% of parents did not express orthodontic concern, even though more than half of these children were in definite need of treatment as assessed by IOTN. The children's orthodontic concern was significantly related to the DHC scores. Out of the 103 children who were in the mixed dentition, only about 16% required interceptive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that a significant number of children were inappropriately referred for orthodontic treatment. Referring dentists need to assess the normative treatment needs of the children as well as the children's and parents' commitment and desire for orthodontic treatment before deciding on the need for referral.

Child↗

Orthodontic treatment outcome in three Swedish counties with different orthodontic resources.

The orthodontic treatment outcomes of 350 19-year-old individuals in three Swedish counties (A, G, and W) with different orthodontic resources and geographic structures were analyzed. The aim was to evaluate the qualitative outcome of orthodontic treatment provided by general practitioners or specialists. In a small rural area (county G), with most specialist resources, the standard of the treatments was high in both specialist treated as well as in nonspecialist treated individuals. The possibilities for the specialists to supervise the nonspecialist care and to treat individuals in need of specialist treatment were good. In an urban area (county A), with less specialist resources (than county G), the standard of the treatments provided by the specialists was high, and higher than the untreated individuals in the same county. The standard of the treatments provided by general practitioners was, however, low. The lack of specialist resources had implied a greater restriction on starting treatments, and the treatments were performed in a higher age than in the other two counties. In a large rural area (county W), with the fewest specialist resources, the standard of the treatments was in general lower than in the other two counties and did not attain the standard of the untreated individuals in county W. Attempts to compensate for a sparsity of orthodontic specialists by an extended engagement of general practitioners resulted in a generous attitude of providing orthodontic treatments, and a lower standard of the treatments in general. The orthodontic treatments substantially improved the malocclusions, especially treatments provided by specialist. The standard of the treatments in the counties showed a good correlation with the available resources in terms of orthodontic specialists and the ability to supervise the treatments of general practitioners. The lack of sufficient supervision of non-specialist orthodontic treatment had negative influence on the quality.

Adult↗

[Status of the temporomandibular joint after orthodontic-surgical interventions with and without concomitant orthodontic treatment].

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to control improvement in the high preoperative prevalence of TMJ symptoms in patients treated by long-term orthodontic therapy for class II malocclusion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 57 patients were examined at least 8 years after surgery, 37 having received orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery and 20 surgery but without orthodontic treatment. Myofunctional, disk and condylar symptoms were recorded according to the Krough-Poulsen scheme. RESULTS: Both groups showed a normal maximal interincisal distance. The deviation during the opening movement was mainly sigmoidal in the group with orthodontic treatment and terminal in the other group. Muscular pain predominated in the group without orthodontic treatment. Clicking sounds of the TMJ were registered in 70% of both groups. Occlusal interference and a higher interocclusal distance when speaking were found more often in patients without orthodontic treatment. Preoperatively, clicking and crepitation sounds had been recorded in 60% of both patients groups. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, a high postoperative prevalence of TMJ dysfunction symptoms was found in patients with class II malocclusion 8-10 years after orthognathic surgery with or without orthodontic treatment. Both groups often exhibited TMJ clicking and crepitation sounds, whereas the patients that had not received orthodontic treatment had a higher prevalence of occlusal interference and muscular pain.

Adult↗

Orthodontic Clinical Trials III: reporting of ethical issues associated with clinical trials published in three orthodontic journals between 1989 and 1998.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to assess whether reports of orthodontic clinical trials complied with the requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SETTING: The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), Journal of Orthodontics (formerly and up until 1999 known as the British Journal of Orthodontics, BJO) and European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO). DATA SOURCE: Clinical trials published between 1989 and 1998. METHODS: A hand search was performed to identify all clinical trials. Each trial report was assessed for inclusion of a statement that ethical approval and/or informed consent had been obtained. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-fifty-five papers were identified, of which 85 (54.8%) were reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 70 (45.2%) of controlled clinical trials (CCTs). 16.1% (25/155), of the trial reports stated that ethical approval had been obtained and a quarter (39/155, 25.1%) indicated that informed consent had been obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Most orthodontic clinical trial reports failed to state whether ethical approval and/or informed consent had been obtained. The reporting of the ethical issues associated with orthodontic clinical trials could be improved further not only by the instructions to authors in orthodontic journals stating the need for studies to comply with the Declaration of Helsinki, but also by Journal editors refusing to publish trials that do not comply.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Limiting factors in orthodontic treatment: 1. Factors related to patient, operator and orthodontic appliances.

UNLABELLED: Owing to a shortage in the orthodontic work force in the United Kingdom, many general dental practitioners carry out orthodontic treatment in selected cases. Orthodontic treatment may not always be successful as a result of various factors. Some of these limiting factors are related to the practitioner, others to the patient, the orthodontic appliances used and sometimes to the underlying biology. It is essential that practitioners are aware of these limitations. The aim of this two part article is to describe some of the practical aspects that need to be considered. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: General dental practitioners and novice orthodontic practitioners may get into difficulties by embarking upon an orthodontic treatment which may not be feasible owing to various limitations of orthodontic treatment.

Age Factors↗

Results of transplanting developing third molars as part of orthodontics space management. Part 2: results following the orthodontic treatment of transplanted developing third molars in cases of aplasia and premature loss of teeth with atrophy of the alveolar process.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of atrophy of the alveolar process and subsequent orthodontic treatment on the transplantation results of developing third molars. The material consisted of 35 teeth transplanted to an atrophied alveolar process. 19 of these teeth were treated orthodontically subsequent to transplantation. The control group consisted of 61 developing molars transplanted to a new extraction socket. The transplanted teeth were followed up clinically and radiographically for a mean period of 3.2 years. RESULTS: The success rate was 85% for transplants to new extraction sockets and 84% for transplants to atrophied jaw sections with subsequent orthodontic treatment. In contrast, transplants to atrophied jaw sections without subsequent orthodontic treatment showed a significantly (p < or = 0.001) lower success rate of only 37.5%. These poorer results were due to persistent infraocclusion and ankylosis. CONCLUSIONS: Even in cases with atrophy of the alveolar process, a transplantation with subsequent orthodontic treatment represents a promising treatment concept, whereas teeth without subsequent orthodontic treatment showed a lower success rate. Orthodontic tooth movement had no negative effect on the healing rates of transplanted developing third molars.

Adolescent↗

Orthodontic treatment for posterior crossbites.

BACKGROUND: 'Posterior crossbite' occurs when the top back teeth bite inside the bottom back teeth. When it affects one side of the mouth the lower jaw may have to move to one side to allow the back teeth to meet together. This movement may have long term effects on the growth of the teeth and jaws. It is unclear what causes posterior crossbites and they may develop or improve at any time from when the baby teeth come into the mouth to when the adult teeth come through. Several treatments have been recommended to correct them. Some treatments widen the upper teeth whilst others are directed at treating the cause of the posterior crossbite e.g. breathing problems or sucking habits. Most treatments have been used at each stage of dental development. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to identify and evaluate orthodontic treatments used to expand the maxillary dentition and / or correct posterior crossbites. SEARCH STRATEGY: All randomised and controlled clinical trials identified from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register according to the Oral Health Group Search Strategy and stored in the Cochrane Collaboration Oral Health Group Database of Clinical Trials, a MEDLINE search using the Mesh term and free text words, hand searching the British, European and American journals of orthodontics and Angle Orthodontist, and the bibliographies of papers and review articles which reported the outcome of orthodontic treatment to expand the maxillary dentition and/or correct a posterior crossbite that were published as abstracts or papers between 1970 and 1997 in English. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised and controlled clinical trials published as full papers or abstracts which reported quantitative data on the outcomes crossbite correction, molar and/or canine expansion, signs and symptoms of temporomandibular joint dysfunction or respiratory disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted without blinding to the authors, treatments used or results obtained. The first named authors of randomised and controlled clinical trials were written to in an attempt to establish the method of randomisation / allocation and identify unpublished studies. Odds ratio, 95% confidence intervals, relative risk, relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and the number need to treat were calculated for event data. The weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data. MAIN RESULTS: Using the search strategy 7 randomised and 5 controlled clinical trials were identified but following correspondence with the authors, 3 of the randomised and 1 of the controlled clinical trials were reclassified giving 5 randomised and 7 controlled clinical trials for inclusion in the review. Trials comparing occlusal grinding in the primary dentition with/without an upper removable expansion appliance in the mixed dentition versus no treatment, banded versus bonded rapid maxillary expansion, banded versus bonded slow maxillary expansion, transpalatal arch with/without buccal root torque and an upper removable expansion appliance versus quad-helix were identified. Occlusal grinding in the primary dentition with/without the addition of an upper removable expansion plate, in the mixed dentition for those children who did not respond to grinding, was shown to be effective in preventing a posterior crossbite in the primary dentition from being perpetuated to the mixed and permanent dentitions. No evidence of a difference in treatment effect (molar and canine expansion) between the test and control intervention was found in the trials which compared banded versus bonded rapid maxillary expansion, banded versus bonded slow maxillary expansion, transpalatal arch with/without buccal root torque, or upper removable expansion appliance versus quad-helix. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Adult↗

Limiting factors in orthodontic treatment: 2. The biological limitations of orthodontic treatment.

UNLABELLED: Owing to a shortage in the orthodontic workforce in the United Kingdom, general dental practitioners carry out orthodontic treatment in selected cases. Orthodontic treatment may not always be successful due to various factors. Some of these limiting factors are related to the practitioner, others to the patients and the orthodontic appliances used. These three sets of factors were covered in the first part of this article. This second part deals with the biologic limitations of orthodontic treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: General dental practitioners and novice orthodontic practitioners may get into difficulties by embarking upon an orthodontic treatment which may not be feasible due to various limitations imposed by the underlying biology. This article provides a brief outline of these limitations.

Age Factors↗

A comparison of outcomes of orthodontic and surgical-orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusion in adults.

The treatment outcome for skeletal Class II malocclusion was reviewed in 33 nongrowing patients who were treated with orthodontics alone (by premolar extraction and tooth movement to camouflage the skeletal problem) and in 57 patients treated for similar problems with surgery and orthodontics (with mandibular advancement and with tooth movement to reduce rather than increase dental compensation for the skeletal deformity). Cephalometric and dental cast changes were scored to quantitate treatment effects. Two approaches were used to determine the treatment efficacy (the relative success of treatment): (1) whether the final value for a measurement criterion (such as an overjet and an ANB angle) fell within the normal range, and (2) the quantitative amount of correction produced relative to an "ideal" value. In addition, a panel of judges was used to rate esthetic changes from pretreatment and posttreatment facial slides. Both orthodontic treatment and surgical-orthodontic treatment improved the malocclusion as judged from dental casts. Surgery resulted in greater reduction of overjet and greater improvement in most cephalometric skeletal, dental, and soft tissue criteria. Before treatment, the surgical patients had lower esthetic ratings than the orthodontics-only patients. After treatment, the esthetic ratings for the orthodontic patients were unchanged. The surgical patients had improved but not to the pretreatment level of the orthodontics patients.

Adult↗