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: 1.48). 05/2005; 27(2):148-54. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjh071
Source: PubMed


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.

Download full-text


Available from: Birte Prahl-Andersen
  • Source
    • "Although one of the most significant factors in treatment success is patient compliance, studies suggest that approximately 25% to 50% of adolescents in the United States do not follow instructions given by professionals (Bos, 2005a, 2005b), which can lead to an early conclusion or suspension of treatment (Moss et al., 1981). "

    Preview · Article · Sep 2014
  • [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.
    No preview · Article · Sep 2002 · The Spine Journal
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Orthodontic anchorage is the ability to resist unwanted reciprocal forces and reinforcement of anchorage by supplementary appliances, in or outside the mouth, is often needed to obtain successful results. In the last 10 years, interest in appliances that use implants has been growing. Successful orthodontic treatment demands effective methods and systematic evaluation of different treatment approaches is therefore essential. Several studies on the efficiency of various anchorage systems have been published, but a critical appraisal or interpretation of evidence that systematically considers validity, results, and relevance has not been made. Analysis of treatment modalities must also include patients' perceptions and potential side-effects. The overall aim of this thesis was to evaluate a new anchorage technique that incorporates osseointegration and compare it with conventional methods concerning effects on tooth movements in adolescents and their acceptance and experience of the additional surgical procedures that osseointegration involves. The following anchorage systems were analyzed: Onplant system, Orthosystem implant, headgear and transpalatal bar. This thesis was based on four studies: Paper I systematically reviewed the efficiency of orthodontic anchorage systems and interpreted the methodological quality of the selected studies from an evidence-based perspective. The literature search spanned January 1966 - December 2004 and was later extended to July 2007. Paper II, a methodological study involving 60 adolescent patients, examined the validity and reliability of a new questionnaire for assessing adolescent patients' perceptions of orthodontic treatment. The questionnaire was based on focus group interviews. Papers III and IV were randomized controlled trials involving 120 adolescent patients in orthodontic treatment. Paper III evaluated and compared adolescent patients' perceptions of premolar extractions and surgical placement of Onplants and Orthosystem implants. Paper IV compared anchorage capacities of the four systems. These conclusions were drawn: The scientific evidence, found in the review, was too weak to evaluate the efficiency of various anchorage systems (conventional and osseointegrated) during space closure after premolar extraction, and most studies have quality problems. Future randomized controlled trials are recommended. The new questionnaire, developed from focus group interviews, had overall acceptable to good reliability and high face validity. It can therefore be recommended for use in the assessment of adolescents' experiences of orthodontic treatment. Pain intensity after surgical placement of an Orthosystem implant was less than after Onplant installation and premolar extraction. Pain intensity after Onplant installation and premolar extractions were comparable. With respect to pain intensity, discomfort, and analgesic
    Preview · Article · Feb 2007 · Swedish dental journal. Supplement
Show more