Article

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
 · 
205 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of study: To compare clinical outcomes of lumbar microdiscectomy (MD) and conservative care (CC) in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH).Methods used: Eighty-eight patients with low back pain (LBP) and sciatica, plus magnetic resonance imaging evidence of a small/moderate LDH were allocated to MD or to CC with proactive exercise and education. Patients with compelling indication for surgery (major neurological symptoms or severe sciatica), spinal stenosis, major pathology or previous spinal surgery were excluded. Primary outcomes were pain (visual analogue scales [VAS]) and disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]). Other measures included the short form (SF)-36 and shuttle walk test. Eighty subjects remained in the study at 12 months.of findings: Mean age was 39.8 years. Mean ratio of back/leg pain was 45/ 55. Baseline group characteristics were well balanced. Outcome data were analyzed using regression of treatment group on each measure adjusting for baseline values. MD patients had greater reduction in pain and ODI scores, with significant differences at each time point (Table 1), and improvement with time was observed in both groups.Relationship between findings and existing knowledge: Nonrandomized studies in LDH have reported superior outcome with surgery, with differences decreasing over time. One RCT with 10-year follow-up in 1983 showed superior outcome with surgery only at 1 year. Our results support these findings at the 1-year stage and suggest that back pain as well as nerve root pain is reduced.Overall significance of findings: The threshold for surgical intervention in this patient group, with moderate disability related to both back and leg pain, remains uncertain, reflected in wide variations of rates for surgery. This study reports significant benefits in the first 12 months with MD, and the magnitude of differences between groups suggests that MD may be worthwhile even if this gap closes at a later stage. It is noteworthy, however, that in both groups there are those who do well and those who do not. Longer-term follow-up and study of the influence of predictive factors in this patient group is recommended.Disclosures: No disclosures.Conflict of interest: No conflicts.
    Spine Journal - SPINE J. 01/2002; 2(5):47-47.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objectives: To examine factors associated with treatment outcome satisfaction in a group of adolescent patients. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty patients (60 girls and 60 boys; mean age, 14.3 years; standard deviation [SD], 1.73 years) were consecutively recruited. The inclusion criteria for all patients were as follows: adolescents with a permanent dentition in need of orthodontic treatment and a treatment plan involving extractions (two or four premolars) followed by fixed appliances in both jaws. Questionnaire 1, concerning treatment motivation and expectations, was assessed prior to treatment start. Questionnaire 2 was assessed after active treatment and included questions about satisfaction with treatment outcome, quality of care and attention, and perceived pain and discomfort during active treatment. Results: One hundred and ten patients completed the trial (54 boys and 56 girls; mean age, 16.9 years; SD, 1.78 years). Median values for satisfaction with treatment outcome were generally high. There was a clear correlation (P ≤ .001) between satisfaction with treatment outcome and patients' perception of how well they had been informed and cared for during treatment. Pain and discomfort during treatment also strongly affected treatment satisfaction. Sex, treatment time, and Peer Assessment Rating index pre- and posttreatment as well as expectations for future treatment showed no correlation with treatment satisfaction. Conclusions: Care and attention was the variable showing the highest correlation with satisfaction with treatment outcome. Patients' perceptions of pain and discomfort during treatment had an overall negative correlation with treatment satisfaction. Satisfaction with treatment outcome is a complex issue and requires further exploration in future research.
    The Angle Orthodontist 01/2014; · 1.18 Impact Factor
  • Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie - J OROFAC ORTHOP. 01/2010; 71(2):108-116.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
401 Downloads
Available from
May 19, 2014

Similar Publications