Search

Introduction: A deeper and more thorough characterization of why patients do or do not seek orthodontic treatment is needed for effective shared decision making about receiving treatment. Previous orthodontic qualitative research has identified important dimensions that influence treatment decisions, but our understanding of patients' decisions and how they interpret benefits and barriers of treatment are lacking. The objectives of this study were to expand our current list of decision-making dimensions and to create a conceptual framework to describe the decision-making process., Methods: Discussion boards, rich in orthodontic decision-making data, were identified and analyzed with qualitative methods. An iterative process of data collection, dimension identification, and dimension refinement were performed to saturation. A conceptual framework was created to describe the decision-making process., Results: Fifty-four dimensions captured the ideas discussed in regard to a patient's decision to receive orthodontic treatment. Ten domains were identified: function, esthetics, psychosocial benefits, diagnosis, finances, inconveniences, risks of treatment, individual aspects, societal attitudes, and child-specific influences, each containing specific descriptive and conceptual dimensions. A person's desires, self-perceptions, and viewpoints, the public's views on esthetics and orthodontics, and parenting philosophies impacted perceptions of benefits and barriers associated with orthodontic treatment., Conclusions: We identified an expanded list of dimensions, created a conceptual framework describing the orthodontic patient's decision-making process, and identified dimensions associated with yes and no decisions, giving doctors a better understanding of patient attitudes and expectations., (Copyright © 2017 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background The purpose of this study was to compare data from a survey of the affiliated organizations of the World Federation of Orthodontists (WFO) originally completed in 1997, the WFO Commissioned Study of the Status of Orthodontics Throughout the World, with those from the 2012 WFO Survey of Orthodontics Worldwide. Methods An electronic questionnaire addressing specialty recognition, training, practice methods, and characteristics of WFO-affiliated organizations was sent to all 100 affiliated organizations of the WFO. Comparisons were made across geographic regions and not individual countries, in accordance with the 1997 survey methodology. Results The response rate was 68%. Orthodontics is a well-recognized specialty with generally increasing educational, clinical, and organizational standards worldwide. Board certification exists in relatively few countries, with the most commonly cited reason being lack of demand. Emerging trends in clinical practice, including temporary anchorage devices and cone beam computed tomography, were widely utilized. Conclusions The 1997 survey was the first comprehensive evaluation of orthodontics throughout the world, and the study of the 2012 survey represents the first comparisons to the 1997 data. The level of recognition of the specialty of orthodontics has increased worldwide and has generally improved education standards, with more countries employing accreditation processes. Both the number of national orthodontic certifying boards and the board-certification rate remain low. New orthodontic technology is changing the way care is delivered in all of the regions in the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The amelogenesis imperfectas (AI) are a diverse group of genetic disorders primarily affecting the quality and or quantity of enamel, however, affected individuals often have an open bite malocclusion. Three main AI types are recognized based on the perceived developmental mechanisms involved and the enamel phenotype. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the association of the AI enamel defect with craniofacial features characteristic of an open bite malocclusion. The sample consisted of 54 AI affected and 34 unaffected family members from 18 different kindreds. Lateral cephalograms were digitized and measurements evaluated for vertical plane alterations using Z-scores. Forty two percent of AI affected individuals and 12% of unaffected family members had dental or skeletal open bite malocclusions. Skeletal open bite malocclusion was variably expressed in AI affected individuals. The enamel phenotype severity did not necessarily correspond with the presence or severity of open bite malocclussion. Open bite malocclusion occurred in individuals with AI caused by mutations in the AMELX and ENAM genes even though these genes are considered to be predominantly or exclusively expressed in teeth. Affected AI individuals with cephalometric values meeting our criteria of skeletal open bite malocclusion were observed in all three major AI types. The pathophysiological relationship between AI associated enamel defects and open bite malocclusion remains unknown. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]