Attitudes towards orthodontic treatment: a comparison of treated and untreated subjects.

Department of Orthodontics and Social Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
The European Journal of Orthodontics (Impact Factor: 1.08). 05/2005; 27(2):148-54. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjh071
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aims of the present study were to evaluate treated and untreated subjects' attitudes towards orthodontic treatment and to examine possible determinants of these attitudes. It was hypothesized that orthodontically treated individuals would differ from untreated respondents in their attitude towards orthodontists and orthodontic treatment, and that female subjects would have a more positive attitude towards orthodontics than male subjects. Untreated individuals (n = 220) were used as a comparison group in the evaluation of orthodontic health care by previously treated subjects (n = 246). Two questionnaires were completed. The first, based on the Dental Attitude Questionnaire, contained 32 items about general attitude towards orthodontic treatment and was completed by both groups. The second questionnaire contained 46 negatively and positively based statements concerning different aspects of orthodontic treatment, and was completed by previously treated subjects. The reliability of both questionnaires was satisfactory. Previously treated subjects were found to have a significantly more positive attitude towards orthodontics than untreated subjects. The subject's attitude towards the relationship with the orthodontist, satisfaction with the treatment result and experiences with follow-up appointments predicted the general attitude towards orthodontics. Age, but not gender, was found to be a significant predictor for a subject's general attitude towards orthodontics.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate the relationship between personality traits and a person's attitude toward orthodontic treatment and perception of pain during orthodontic treatment. The sample consisted of two groups: group 1 consisted of 200 untreated subjects (100 males, 100 females; average age, 21.50 +/- 3.35 years), and group 2 consisted of 200 treated subjects (100 males, 100 females; average age, 20.92 +/- 2.48 years). The instrument for data collection was a questionnaire that included assessment of patients' personality profiles, pain expectation for untreated subjects, pain experience for treated subjects, and attitudes toward orthodontic treatment. Gender, treatment status, and personality traits did not affect subjects' average attitude toward orthodontic treatment, whereas gender was the only variable that affected subjects' average pain perception (P < .01). The average attitude score in subjects who experienced pain during orthodontic treatment was 5.06 +/- 1.43, compared to 4.32 +/- 1.35 for subjects who did not experience pain (P < .001). The average pain perception scores in treated subjects with previous knowledge of orthodontic treatment was 5.29 +/- 1.94, compared to 6.07 +/- 1.95 in subjects who did not have previous knowledge of orthodontic treatment (P < .01). Personality traits did not affect attitude toward orthodontic treatment and pain perception/experience during orthodontic treatment. A more positive attitude was found in patients who experienced less pain during orthodontic treatment.
    The Angle Orthodontist 11/2010; 80(6):1141-9. · 1.18 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective. To explore how malocclusions affect daily life in adolescents and how adolescents cope with malocclusion-related distress. Materials and methods. Twelve strategically selected teenagers, seven girls and five boys aged 13-14 years, participated in this study. Open, tape-recorded in-depth interviews based on Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were performed using a theme guide and analyzed according to the qualitative method of classic grounded theory (GT). Results. A core category was identified and named 'Repeatedly reminded of the malocclusion'. Associated to the core category, five categories were generated and labeled 'Being directed by the media's ideal image', 'Monitoring others' teeth', 'Struggling with low self-esteem', 'Hiding one's teeth' and 'Striving for cure'. Low self-esteem appeared to be frequently reinforced through the concerns for the malocclusion and handled via different coping strategies, such as hiding the teeth and striving to receive orthodontic treatment. Such processes were further enforced through the influence of media. Low self-esteem could be associated to a visible malposition of teeth, according to the informants. Having to wait for orthodontic treatment was frustrating the adolescents. Conclusions. Adolescents with malocclusion are often reminded of their condition, which can lead to avoiding strategies to minimize the negative feelings associated with the teeth and low self-esteem. Clinicians may therefore need to be aware of potential irrational behaviors when interacting with adolescents with malocclusions. The findings also suggest that there might be a discrepancy of attitudes between professionals focusing on oral health aspects of malocclusions and the adolescents focusing on esthetic aspects.
    Acta odontologica Scandinavica 10/2012; · 1.41 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The orthodontic treatment period with extractions is prolonged in many cases because of the limited rate of biological tooth movement. An approach using transport distraction osteogenesis was designed to reduce orthodontic and orthognathic treatment time. Overall management of selected alveolar cleft cases with wide defects may also be optimized and simplified through transport distraction of a tooth-bone segment. We will discuss our experience with 73 cases, both conventional orthodontic cases and orthognathic patients, in which dentoalveolar distraction was used to reduce orthodontic treatment time and to treat wide alveolar clefts with compromised soft tissues to facilitate optimal outcome.
    Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 03/2011; 69(3):763-70. · 1.58 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 19, 2014