Abstract
Abstract Objectives To evaluate the current practice of interceptive orthodontics undertaken by general dental practitioners and identify influencing factors. Materials and methods Printed questionnaires were provided to 200 registered Australian general dental practitioners. Participants were questioned about their current confidence, attitudes, and practice, related to interceptive orthodontics in general dentistry. Results The decision to practise interceptive orthodontics (17.4% of respondents) was strongly dependent on the confidence of the dentist (x2 = 48.693; df = 4; p < 0.001). It was also found that the provision of interceptive orthodontics was prevented by its perceived importance (x2 = 23.559; df = 5; p < 0.001) and benefit in a general dental setting (x2 = 9.411; df = 4; p = 0.035). The provision of more education was not shown to likely increase the number of dentists performing interceptive orthodontics. Low clinician confidence in the provision of interceptive orthodontics was also shown to result in orthodontic consultation prior to performing treatment (x2 = 31.782; df = 16; p = 0.004) or referral to an orthodontist (x2 = 42.465; df = 12; p < 0.001). Conclusions Interceptive orthodontics was not practised by most dentists. This decision was shown to be influenced by the clinicians’ confidence, further education or training, perceived importance of interceptive orthodontics and the impact that early intervention might have on future orthodontic treatment. Consideration should also be given to clarifying the orthodontic scope of practice for general dentists, in order to reduce the confusion influencing the provision of orthodontic care.
Highlights
The general dental practitioner (GDP) is widely acknowledged to play an important role in the identification and diagnosis of malocclusions
Of the 200 surveys distributed to dentists inviting participation, 149 surveys were completed, resulting in a response rate of 74.5%
The results of the present study show that only one-in-six dentists practice Interceptive orthodontics (IO), despite nearly one-in-three receiving further orthodontic training after graduating from dental school
Summary
The general dental practitioner (GDP) is widely acknowledged to play an important role in the identification and diagnosis of malocclusions. Not producing the same finish quality that a second phase orthodontic treatment may yield, studies have identified a significant reduction in treatment need following the implementation of IO.[6,7,8] This involves a shift from a patient’s perceived need of treatment for a malocclusion from “medically necessary” to “elective”, following IO during the mixed dentition.[9] The success of IO is shown to be influenced by the timing of the identification and treatment;[10,11] it has been further shown that many GDPs do not have confidence in providing IO treatment.[1,12,13] The limitation of IO in a general dental setting may be shown to have a deleterious effect on the young patient by not correcting a developing malocclusion. The present study aimed to investigate the current practice of IO by GDPs and identify barriers limiting its practice
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
