荷兰横下颌和上颌差异的当前实践:一项基于网络的正畸医生和口腔颌面外科医生调查。

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Atilla Gül, Stephen T H Tjoa, Jan P de Gijt, Justin T van der Tas, Hadi Sutedja, Eppo B Wolvius, Karel G H van der Wal, Maarten J Koudstaal
{"title":"荷兰横下颌和上颌差异的当前实践:一项基于网络的正畸医生和口腔颌面外科医生调查。","authors":"Atilla Gül,&nbsp;Stephen T H Tjoa,&nbsp;Jan P de Gijt,&nbsp;Justin T van der Tas,&nbsp;Hadi Sutedja,&nbsp;Eppo B Wolvius,&nbsp;Karel G H van der Wal,&nbsp;Maarten J Koudstaal","doi":"10.1177/19433875211027694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The main objective of this study was to provide an overview of the current practice for transverse mandibular and maxillary discrepancies in the Netherlands using a web-based survey. Orthodontists (ORTHO) and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (OMFS) in the Netherlands were invited to the web-based survey via their professional association. Three cases were presented which could be treated non-surgically and surgically. Participants were asked what treatment they preferred: no treatment, orthodontic treatment with optional extractions or surgically assisted orthodontic treatment. The web-based survey ended with questions on various technical aspects and any experienced complication. Invitation was sent to all 303 members of professional association for ORTHO and to all 379 members of professional association for OMFS. Overall response number was 276 (response rate of 40.5%), including 127 incomplete responses. Generally, ORTHO prefer orthodontic treatment with optional extractions and OMFS lean towards surgically assisted orthodontic treatment. Mandibular Midline Distraction appears to be less preferred, possibly due to lack of clinical experience or knowledge by both professions despite being proven clinical stable surgical technique with stable long-term outcomes. There seems to be consensus on technical aspects by both professions, however, there are various thoughts on duration of consolidation period. Complications are mostly minor and manageable.</p>","PeriodicalId":46447,"journal":{"name":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/19433875211027694","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current Practice for Transverse Mandibular and Maxillary Discrepancies in the Netherlands: A Web-Based Survey Among Orthodontists and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.\",\"authors\":\"Atilla Gül,&nbsp;Stephen T H Tjoa,&nbsp;Jan P de Gijt,&nbsp;Justin T van der Tas,&nbsp;Hadi Sutedja,&nbsp;Eppo B Wolvius,&nbsp;Karel G H van der Wal,&nbsp;Maarten J Koudstaal\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19433875211027694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The main objective of this study was to provide an overview of the current practice for transverse mandibular and maxillary discrepancies in the Netherlands using a web-based survey. Orthodontists (ORTHO) and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (OMFS) in the Netherlands were invited to the web-based survey via their professional association. Three cases were presented which could be treated non-surgically and surgically. Participants were asked what treatment they preferred: no treatment, orthodontic treatment with optional extractions or surgically assisted orthodontic treatment. The web-based survey ended with questions on various technical aspects and any experienced complication. Invitation was sent to all 303 members of professional association for ORTHO and to all 379 members of professional association for OMFS. Overall response number was 276 (response rate of 40.5%), including 127 incomplete responses. Generally, ORTHO prefer orthodontic treatment with optional extractions and OMFS lean towards surgically assisted orthodontic treatment. Mandibular Midline Distraction appears to be less preferred, possibly due to lack of clinical experience or knowledge by both professions despite being proven clinical stable surgical technique with stable long-term outcomes. There seems to be consensus on technical aspects by both professions, however, there are various thoughts on duration of consolidation period. Complications are mostly minor and manageable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/19433875211027694\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875211027694\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875211027694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的主要目的是通过基于网络的调查,概述目前荷兰下颌和上颌横向差异的实践。荷兰的正畸医生(ORTHO)和口腔颌面外科医生(OMFS)通过他们的专业协会被邀请参加基于网络的调查。本文介绍了非手术治疗和手术治疗的3例。参与者被问及他们喜欢什么治疗:不治疗,正畸治疗与可选的拔牙或手术辅助正畸治疗。基于网络的调查以各种技术方面的问题和任何遇到的复杂情况结束。向ORTHO专业协会的所有303名成员和OMFS专业协会的所有379名成员发出邀请。总应答数为276个(应答率为40.5%),包括127个不完整应答。一般来说,ORTHO倾向于选择性拔牙的正畸治疗,而OMFS倾向于手术辅助的正畸治疗。下颌中线牵引似乎不太受欢迎,可能是由于缺乏临床经验或专业知识,尽管临床证明稳定的手术技术和稳定的长期结果。在技术方面,两种专业人士似乎达成了共识,然而,对于盘整期的持续时间却有不同的看法。并发症大多是轻微和可控的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Current Practice for Transverse Mandibular and Maxillary Discrepancies in the Netherlands: A Web-Based Survey Among Orthodontists and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

The main objective of this study was to provide an overview of the current practice for transverse mandibular and maxillary discrepancies in the Netherlands using a web-based survey. Orthodontists (ORTHO) and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (OMFS) in the Netherlands were invited to the web-based survey via their professional association. Three cases were presented which could be treated non-surgically and surgically. Participants were asked what treatment they preferred: no treatment, orthodontic treatment with optional extractions or surgically assisted orthodontic treatment. The web-based survey ended with questions on various technical aspects and any experienced complication. Invitation was sent to all 303 members of professional association for ORTHO and to all 379 members of professional association for OMFS. Overall response number was 276 (response rate of 40.5%), including 127 incomplete responses. Generally, ORTHO prefer orthodontic treatment with optional extractions and OMFS lean towards surgically assisted orthodontic treatment. Mandibular Midline Distraction appears to be less preferred, possibly due to lack of clinical experience or knowledge by both professions despite being proven clinical stable surgical technique with stable long-term outcomes. There seems to be consensus on technical aspects by both professions, however, there are various thoughts on duration of consolidation period. Complications are mostly minor and manageable.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信