1. Variation in bracket slot sizes, ligation methods and prescriptions: UK national survey.
- Author
-
Yassir YA, McIntyre GT, and Bearn DR
- Subjects
- Humans, Materials Testing, Orthodontic Appliance Design, Orthodontic Wires, Orthodontics, Corrective methods, Surveys and Questionnaires, United Kingdom, Orthodontic Brackets statistics & numerical data, Orthodontists psychology, Societies, Dental
- Abstract
Objective: This study designed to investigate the use of fixed bracket slot sizes, ligation method and prescriptions in the UK using an online survey/questionnaire comprised of seven questions., Material and Methods: The questionnaire link along with an explanation of its nature was circulated via the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) to all 978-email addresses of the Consultant Orthodontists Group (COG) and Orthodontic Specialists Group (OSG) (registered on the UK Specialist List for Orthodontics) members inviting them to participate. Two email reminders were sent to increase the response rate. Chi
2 analyses determined the statistical differences in the use of bracket slots and prescriptions according to the regions and years of experience., Results: The respondents represented 31.2% of the BOS specialist orthodontic members. Most of the respondents practised in the South of England with experience between 11-30years. The vast majority of the respondents routinely used brackets with the multibracket appliance treatment (MBT) prescription (81.6%) and 0.022-inch slot size (98.7%), which was statistically significantly higher in all geographical regions and experience levels (P<0.001). The majority of the respondents reported either 100% or 90% use of conventional brackets when compared to self-ligating brackets., Conclusion: The vast majority of UK specialist orthodontists use conventional ligating MBT prescription brackets with the 0.022-inch slot size. This was mainly because they perceive that this combination provides better treatment outcomes, whilst many respondents also indicated that they were taught and trained using this combination and that there was not enough evidence to support a change in their clinical practice., (Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF