Oral health with fixed appliances orthodontics.

GMS health technology assessment Pub Date : 2008-03-11
Wilhelm Frank, Karin Pfaller, Brigitte Konta
{"title":"Oral health with fixed appliances orthodontics.","authors":"Wilhelm Frank,&nbsp;Karin Pfaller,&nbsp;Brigitte Konta","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Orthodontic treatment represents an important fraction in dental interventions. According to other medical methods the question for scientific evidence for the effectiveness of these treatments arises. The question of the effectiveness is connected with the question what is understood as an effect. In principle, the effect of the intervention is understood on the basis of the occlusion or dental health, what disregards further functions of oral health. The generalization to oral health is therefore a necessary consideration in science now. If one appreciates this further development, then there is no one single randomised study available which examines the long-term effect of the orthodontic intervention or for the effects on the oral health.The question, whether the application of a fixed appliance in an orthodontic treatment causes a long-term improvement in oral health, cannot be answered at the present time. The scientific status is the definition of oral health at present. Also the question, whether in the long run the dental health can be improved by fixed appliances cannot be answered with a quality usually achieved by evidence-based medicine. Whether correction of a dental malposition is an effective prerequisite for the preservation of the natural teeth, cannot be answered. There is no generalizing study with sufficient scientific background for Europe or Germany to this topic. The risk for caries cannot be quantified. Caries is identified as a central topic in general but due to numerous factors influencing the risk it is not quantified. The question of the indications is completely open from the scientific literature. For the question of the therapy need or therapy priority some indexes were developed, which lead to a quantification. These indices however are fundamentally criticised by recent research in their meaning and the empirical relevance.There is an impression that there exists a big gap between the practical application and the scientific investigation of this effectiveness of fixed appliances or orthodontic treatment in general. There is much research in the area of diagnostics or further development of appliances or techniques done, however extremely few in the area of need for intervention, analysis of the sustainability; influence factors on the success, like caries or quantification of side effects e. g. root resorption. This research to evaluate the indications is completely lacking, also the required evaluation parameters (e. g. means long-term dental maintenance). This gap is in this respect dubious since a link of determining the demand (inducing demand) and supply in Central European health systems is economically given. This enables to create a possibility for a so-called supply induced demand. To get rid of discussions that the professional work of orthodontics can be near to induced demand or unnecessary indications, research of this topic is quite essential. This requires much stronger information for indications. This can improve confidence for patients and insurance companies. Existing indices like the Index of Treatment Need (IOTN) seem to be of academic interest without practice importance for daily work. The question which indications can be regarded as scientifically proven for the intervention must be given big attention immediately. The individual and subjective assessment of the orthodontist (whose experience is not doubted) has to be considered as not sufficient. The scientific background is absolutely necessary due to ethic reasons for the patient, economic reasons for the social insurance system or financiers and also for the orthodontists to evaluative and legitimates the treatment. Well coordinated research with the goal of collecting specific data is urgently required for individual therapeutic processes with appropriate design. The study quality is also an essential topic. It is unacceptable at the beginning of the 21st century with the background of the evidence based medicine, that studies are published with enormous methodological errors. Orthodontics deserves a well discussed scientific position to prove the enormous individual success and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the developed treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":89142,"journal":{"name":"GMS health technology assessment","volume":"4 ","pages":"Doc02"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d2/41/HTA-04-02.PMC3011300.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Orthodontic treatment represents an important fraction in dental interventions. According to other medical methods the question for scientific evidence for the effectiveness of these treatments arises. The question of the effectiveness is connected with the question what is understood as an effect. In principle, the effect of the intervention is understood on the basis of the occlusion or dental health, what disregards further functions of oral health. The generalization to oral health is therefore a necessary consideration in science now. If one appreciates this further development, then there is no one single randomised study available which examines the long-term effect of the orthodontic intervention or for the effects on the oral health.The question, whether the application of a fixed appliance in an orthodontic treatment causes a long-term improvement in oral health, cannot be answered at the present time. The scientific status is the definition of oral health at present. Also the question, whether in the long run the dental health can be improved by fixed appliances cannot be answered with a quality usually achieved by evidence-based medicine. Whether correction of a dental malposition is an effective prerequisite for the preservation of the natural teeth, cannot be answered. There is no generalizing study with sufficient scientific background for Europe or Germany to this topic. The risk for caries cannot be quantified. Caries is identified as a central topic in general but due to numerous factors influencing the risk it is not quantified. The question of the indications is completely open from the scientific literature. For the question of the therapy need or therapy priority some indexes were developed, which lead to a quantification. These indices however are fundamentally criticised by recent research in their meaning and the empirical relevance.There is an impression that there exists a big gap between the practical application and the scientific investigation of this effectiveness of fixed appliances or orthodontic treatment in general. There is much research in the area of diagnostics or further development of appliances or techniques done, however extremely few in the area of need for intervention, analysis of the sustainability; influence factors on the success, like caries or quantification of side effects e. g. root resorption. This research to evaluate the indications is completely lacking, also the required evaluation parameters (e. g. means long-term dental maintenance). This gap is in this respect dubious since a link of determining the demand (inducing demand) and supply in Central European health systems is economically given. This enables to create a possibility for a so-called supply induced demand. To get rid of discussions that the professional work of orthodontics can be near to induced demand or unnecessary indications, research of this topic is quite essential. This requires much stronger information for indications. This can improve confidence for patients and insurance companies. Existing indices like the Index of Treatment Need (IOTN) seem to be of academic interest without practice importance for daily work. The question which indications can be regarded as scientifically proven for the intervention must be given big attention immediately. The individual and subjective assessment of the orthodontist (whose experience is not doubted) has to be considered as not sufficient. The scientific background is absolutely necessary due to ethic reasons for the patient, economic reasons for the social insurance system or financiers and also for the orthodontists to evaluative and legitimates the treatment. Well coordinated research with the goal of collecting specific data is urgently required for individual therapeutic processes with appropriate design. The study quality is also an essential topic. It is unacceptable at the beginning of the 21st century with the background of the evidence based medicine, that studies are published with enormous methodological errors. Orthodontics deserves a well discussed scientific position to prove the enormous individual success and to demonstrate the effectiveness of the developed treatments.

口腔保健用固定矫治器矫正。
正畸治疗是牙科干预的重要组成部分。根据其他医学方法,这些治疗方法有效性的科学证据问题出现了。有效性的问题与什么被理解为效果的问题是相联系的。原则上,干预的效果是在咬合或牙齿健康的基础上理解的,而忽略了口腔健康的进一步功能。因此,对口腔健康的推广是现在科学上必要的考虑。如果有人欣赏这一进一步的发展,那么就没有一个单一的随机研究可以检验正畸干预的长期效果或对口腔健康的影响。在正畸治疗中使用固定矫治器是否能长期改善口腔健康,这个问题目前还无法回答。科学现状是目前口腔健康的定义。此外,从长远来看,固定矫治器是否能改善牙齿健康,这一问题也无法以循证医学通常达到的质量来回答。牙齿错位矫正是否是保存天然牙齿的有效前提,目前还无法回答。欧洲或德国对这一主题还没有具有足够科学背景的概括性研究。龋齿的风险无法量化。龋齿通常被认为是一个中心话题,但由于影响风险的因素众多,因此无法量化。适应症的问题在科学文献中是完全公开的。针对治疗需要或治疗优先级的问题,提出了一些量化指标。然而,这些指数从根本上批评了最近的研究在其意义和经验的相关性。一般来说,固定矫治器或正畸治疗的这种有效性的实际应用与科学研究之间存在很大差距。在诊断或进一步发展器具或技术方面有很多研究,但在需要干预的领域,对可持续性的分析却很少;影响成功的因素,如龋齿或副作用的量化,如牙根吸收。这方面的研究完全缺乏对适应症的评估,也缺乏所需的评估参数(如指长期牙齿维护)。这种差距在这方面是可疑的,因为在中欧卫生系统中确定需求(诱导需求)和供应之间的联系是经济上给出的。这使所谓的供给诱导需求成为可能。为了摆脱关于正畸专业工作可能接近诱导需求或不必要指征的讨论,本课题的研究是非常必要的。这需要更强有力的适应症信息。这可以提高患者和保险公司的信心。现有的指标,如治疗需求指数(IOTN),似乎只是学术上的兴趣,对日常工作没有实践意义。哪些适应症可以被认为是科学证明的干预问题必须立即引起高度重视。正畸医生(其经验毋庸置疑)的个人和主观评估必须被认为是不充分的。科学背景是绝对必要的,因为病人的道德原因,社会保险系统或金融机构的经济原因,以及正畸医生评估和合法化治疗的原因。迫切需要以收集特定数据为目标的良好协调研究,以适当设计个体治疗过程。学习质量也是一个必不可少的话题。在21世纪初的循证医学背景下,发表的研究存在巨大的方法错误,这是不可接受的。正畸学应该得到充分的科学讨论,以证明巨大的个人成功,并展示发展治疗的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信