TY - JOUR
T1 - Orthodontists’ perception and attitude toward accelerated orthodontic treatments in Australia
AU - Hatami, Amir
AU - Naoum, Steven
AU - Lee, Richard J.H.
AU - Razza, John M.
AU - Goonewardene, Mithran S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Author(s).
PY - 2024/7
Y1 - 2024/7
N2 - Introduction: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to survey the perception and attitude of Australian orthodontists toward accelerated orthodontic treatments. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to 427 members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. The questions related to: clinic demographics, familiarity with appliances/procedures to accelerate orthodontic treatment, the use of appliances/ procedures to accelerate orthodontic treatment, and satisfaction with the outcomes when employing these appliances/procedures. Results: The response rate was 42.38%. Of the respondents, 26.6% used customised fixed appliances which provided satisfactory outcomes. A small proportion of the respondents routinely used adjunctive procedures to accelerate treatment: 3.5% (n=6) corticotomies, 1.2% (n=2) piezocision, and 1.2% (n=2) intraoral vibrating devices. Conclusion: Although a significant number of Australian orthodontists use customised fixed appliances to improve the efficiency of orthodontic treatment, the use of adjunctive procedures to accelerate tooth movement remains very low. Further research is needed to understand the possible limitations and restrictions surrounding this area of practice.
AB - Introduction: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to survey the perception and attitude of Australian orthodontists toward accelerated orthodontic treatments. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to 427 members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. The questions related to: clinic demographics, familiarity with appliances/procedures to accelerate orthodontic treatment, the use of appliances/ procedures to accelerate orthodontic treatment, and satisfaction with the outcomes when employing these appliances/procedures. Results: The response rate was 42.38%. Of the respondents, 26.6% used customised fixed appliances which provided satisfactory outcomes. A small proportion of the respondents routinely used adjunctive procedures to accelerate treatment: 3.5% (n=6) corticotomies, 1.2% (n=2) piezocision, and 1.2% (n=2) intraoral vibrating devices. Conclusion: Although a significant number of Australian orthodontists use customised fixed appliances to improve the efficiency of orthodontic treatment, the use of adjunctive procedures to accelerate tooth movement remains very low. Further research is needed to understand the possible limitations and restrictions surrounding this area of practice.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85200235297&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2478/aoj-2024-0017
DO - 10.2478/aoj-2024-0017
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85200235297
SN - 2207-7472
VL - 40
SP - 1
EP - 8
JO - Australasian Orthodontic Journal
JF - Australasian Orthodontic Journal
IS - 2
ER -