Search

Cases from the Dental Practice Board's 2 per cent random sample of completed cases which had been treated by orthodontic practitioners with high gross earnings, were compared to all the cases within the sample from other practitioners. They were assessed using the PAR index and IOTN. High earning orthodontists treated slightly more cases with lower objective need for treatment, but treated no more cases 'Unnecessarily' than other practitioners. They used more fixed appliances, and had marginally better levels of residual need for treatment at finish, although this was at least partially explained by lower levels at start. Generally, their standards were not substantially different to other practitioners. Appliance type had a marked effect on outcome, as did levels of malocclusion and need for treatment at start. Both groups of practitioners performed similarly (better) with dual arch fixed appliances: however, overall standards could only be described as mediocre. There is no justification to single out high earning orthodontists for special scrutiny. However, it may be beneficial if the system of remuneration in the General Dental Services could be modified to give more positive incentive to quality, rather than simply quantity of treatments.

A systematic sample of 1010 cases was collected by the Dental Practice Board. The commonest type of treatment involved extraction of the first premolars followed by removable appliances. Treatment duration was on average 1.9 years, one-arch fixed appliances were started in an older age group and two-arch fixed appliance treatment took longer to complete than other appliance types. The best standard of treatment was achieved using upper and lower fixed appliances.