Perceptions and utilization of tele-orthodontics: a survey of the members of the American Association of Orthodontists.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate orthodontists' utilization and perceptions of tele-orthodontics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 30-item online survey was distributed to members of the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO). The questionnaire encompassed topics concerning the orthodontists' utilization, perceptions, clinical applications, limitations, and concerns regarding tele-orthodontics. Descriptive statistics were employed, and comparisons between responses from users and non-users were conducted  using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: 152 members completed the survey, (response rate: 2.4%). More than two third of respondents (69.74%) were users of tele-orthodontics. Users were more aligned with the belief that tele-orthodontics facilitates effective communication (mean ± standard deviation (SD) 4.06 ± 0.83 vs. 3.33 ± 0.94, p < 0.001). Both groups agreed on the requirement of patient fees for tele-orthodontic visits (mean ± SD: 3.62 ± 1.11 users vs. 3.74 ± 1.02 non-users, p = 0.659), and on the capability  of the system to reduce unwarranted referrals (p = 0.20). The majority of participants acknowledged  the utility of the system in monitoring aligners' patients (89% in users vs. 61% in non-users, p < 0.001). Non-users expressed greater concerns regarding privacy risks (mean ± SD: 3.06 ± 0.97 users vs. 3.57 ± 0.86 non-users, p = 0.002). Both groups stressed the significance of obtaining informed consent before utilizing tele-orthodontics. CONCLUSIONS: The widespread acceptance of tele-orthodontics among AAO members was apparent, as demonstrated by their recognition of its effectiveness. There was notable variation in how users and non-users perceived tele-orthodontics. The study's results offer valuable insights into both the potential benefits and drawbacks of incorporating this technology into clinical practice from the clincians' perspective.

A Survey on Cone-beam Computed Tomography Usage Among Endodontists in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to investigate the accessibility and frequency of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) usage and to assess the economic and logistical factors involved with its usage among active American Association of Endodontists (AAE) members, utilizing a web-based survey. METHODS: A survey of 19 questions was sent to 3,071 AAE members addressing participant access to, along with financial and logistical aspects of CBCT imaging. Descriptive analysis was performed and Fisher exact test utilized to test associations between groups (P < .05). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 14.7% (n = 544). Ninety-five percent of respondents (n = 486) had an in-office CBCT unit, with those graduating after the year 2000 statistically more likely to have one (P < .05). Utilization of CBCT imaging for every case was reported by 40% of providers. Eighty-nine percent reported taking the scan at the consultation visit and 20% included this charge with the consultation fee. For those who charged for the scan separately, 85% charged more than $100. Providers who paid off their unit did so within 1-2 years (41%), 3-4 years (36%), 4-5 years (12%), and 5+ years (11%). Limited field of view was utilized by 95% of respondents. Fifty-eight percent reported interpreting the scans themselves, 38% send only if pathology is expected, and 3% always send their scans to a radiologist. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, accessibility and utilization of CBCT imaging among United States endodontists has increased and acquisition of this equipment has not made a long lasting financial burden on providers.

Ridge mini-implants, a versatile biomechanical anchorage device whose success is significantly enhanced by splinting: a clinical report.

OBJECTIVES: This clinical report aims to highlight the factors affecting the clinical success of alveolar ridge mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage and provide an overview of the biomechanical versatility of this miniscrew and steps involving the proper technique of its placement. METHODS: For this clinical report, charts for 295 patients who had temporary anchorage devices (TADs) were screened. Twenty patients [15 females and 5 males: mean age = 38.15 ± 15.10 years] with 50 alveolar ridge mini-screws were assessed. A descriptive summary of the main factors affecting their clinical success and the technique employed for their placement was comprehensively discussed and illustrated, in addition to the presentation of some clinical cases illustrating their potential clinical uses. RESULTS: The survival duration (7.32 ± 9.01 months) and clinical success of the alveolar ridge mini-implants that failed (19/50) seem to be affected primarily by 2 factors: splinting; none of the splinted mini-implants failed (0/10) compared to (19/40) of the single mini-implants that failed, and the length of the used mini-implant; the average length of the mini-implants that did not fail was 9.23 mm. Additionally, it appears that these mini-implants are biomechanically robust and durable, those that did not fail had an average survival duration of 35.97 ± 19.79 months. CONCLUSION: Ridge mini-implants offer significant biomechanical versatility in patients with partially edentulous ridges needing complex pre-prosthetic orthodontic movements. The presence of splinting and the length of the used mini-implants are factors that might affect the clinical success of the alveolar ridge mini-implants.

Assessment of clear aligner accuracy of 2 clear aligners systems.

INTRODUCTION: This study compared treatment efficacy for specific tooth movements between 2 clear aligner systems (Clarity [3M Oral Care Solutions, St Paul, Minn] and Invisalign [Align Technology, San Jose, Calif]). METHODS: The study sample included 47 patients (7 males, 40 females; mean age, 36.57 ± 15.97 years) treated with Invisalign and 37 (4 males, 33 females; mean age, 34.30 ± 16.35 years) treated with Clarity aligners who completed their first set of aligners and had an initial refinement scan. Initial and predicted models were obtained from the initial simulated treatment plan. The first model of the refinement scan was labeled as achieved. SlicerCMF software (version 3.1; http://www.slicer.org) was used to superimpose the achieved and predicted digital models over the initial ones with regional superimposition on the relatively stable first molars. Nine hundred forty teeth in the Invisalign system were measured for horizontal, vertical, and angular movements and transverse width and compared with similar measurements of 740 teeth for the Clarity aligners. The deviation from the predicted was calculated and compared between both systems. RESULTS: The deviation achieved from the predicted was significant between the groups for the mandibular interpremolar and intercanine widths (P <0.05). Clarity aligners significantly undercorrected rotations compared with Invisalign for the mandibular first premolars, mandibular canines, maxillary canines, and maxillary central incisors. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for the achieved vs predicted movements in the horizontal and vertical planes (P >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of clear aligner therapy systems (Clarity and Invisalign) in treating mild and moderate malocclusions was comparable. Deviation of the achieved movements from the predicted was greatest for rotational and vertical movements.

Insight into clear aligner therapy protocols and preferences among members of the American Association of Orthodontists in the United States and Canada.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate aligner treatment protocols among orthodontists in the United States and Canada and assess the factors influencing clinician choices in aligner systems, treatment protocols, and targeted malocclusions for aligners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A validated online questionnaire was developed specifically for this research and consisted of three sections. Section 1 evaluated demographics and experience with aligners. Section 2 assessed patient selection and demands and clinician confidence in treating various malocclusions with aligners. Section 3 evaluated treatment protocols used by clinicians. The American Association of Orthodontists Partners in Research Program distributed the survey via e-mail to active members in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: A total of 160 providers completed the survey. Aligners were used by 65.00% of respondents, with the Invisalign system the most popular (81.25%). Aligners were mostly used for adults (97.50%). Tipping was ranked as the easiest movement (1.79 ± 1.35). Extrusion (4.34 ± 1.53) and root movement (4.31 ± 1.27) were ranked as the most difficult. Most were confident treating mild (98.8%) and moderate (82.5%) crowded cases, spacing (96.9%), and anterior crossbite (85%). Of the providers, 58.12% recommended aligners to be changed weekly. Respondents who were confident addressing some of the severe malocclusions were more likely to use Invisalign. CONCLUSIONS: Invisalign is the most popular aligner system, and clinicians seem to be confident using it. Providers are aware of the pitfalls of aligners; they find it challenging to perform root movement and extrusion, and they seem confident treating mild to moderate malocclusions. They avoid complex cases with impactions and severe skeletal problems.

Dental implant and bone augmentation treatment in bone-compromised patients: Oral health-related quality of life outcomes.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Patient-reported outcomes represent an additional and often overlooked measure of dental implant and bone augmentation treatment. Few implant studies have evaluated patient-reported outcomes in those with systemic bone compromise. PURPOSE: The purpose of this cohort study was to assess oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) outcomes in postmenopausal women receiving dental implants with normal bone density or mild osteopenia ("healthy" group; all DXA T-scores at femoral neck, total hip, and L1-L4 spine>-2.0) versus moderate osteopenia or osteoporosis ("bone compromised" group; any DXA T-score at femoral neck, total hip, or L1-L4 spine≤-2.0). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 115 patients were recruited at the University of Connecticut School of Dental Medicine as part of a standard of care, prospective, nonrandomized cohort study. All participants received 1 of 3 bone augmentation procedures with implant placement. At baseline and at various intervals after implant placement, OHRQoL was measured by using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) and surveys of patient expectations and satisfaction. These measures were compared between healthy and bone compromised groups (α=.05). RESULTS: For all OHRQoL measures across linear mixed effects models, no significant differences were found between bone groups at baseline and at each time point after implant placement (P>.05). Using the minimally important difference (MID) for OHIP-14, no definitive clinical differences were found in patient outcomes between bone groups at all postimplant time points (P>.05). From baseline to 24 months after implant placement, both healthy and bone compromised groups exhibited significant improvements in OHIP-14 and patient expectations scores (P<.05). While no within group differences were found in patient satisfaction scores, the mean satisfaction score remained high over time in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcomes as measured through OHIP-14, patient expectations, and patient satisfaction surveys suggest similar postimplant OHRQoL improvement in healthy and bone compromised individuals. OHRQoL improvements between bone groups were similar both in continuity and in scope, with no evidence of statistically significant score differences between groups at 24 months after implant placement across all measures and with no definitive evidence of clinical differences as measured by OHIP-14 MID comparisons across all timepoints.

Association of electrocardiographic and echocardiographic variables with neurological outcomes after ischemic Stroke.

Background: Cardiac dysfunction is often seen following neurological injury. Data regarding cardiac involvement after ischemic stroke is sparse. We investigated the association of electrocardiographic (ECG) and echocardiographic variables with neurological outcomes after an acute ischemic stroke. Methods: We retrospectively collected baseline characteristics, stroke location, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) at the time of admission, acute reperfusion treatment, ECG parameters, and echocardiographic data on 174 patients admitted with acute ischemic stroke. Outcomes of the stroke were based on cerebral performance category (CPC) with a CPC score of 1-2 indicating a good outcome and a CPC score of 3-5 indicating a poor outcome. Results: Older age (75.31 ± 11.89 vs. 65.16 ± 15.87, p < 0.001, OR = 1.04, 95 % CI 1.01-1.07), higher heart rate (80.63 ± 18.69 vs. 74.45 ± 17.17 bpm, p = 0.024, OR = 1.02, 95 % CI 1.00-1.05) longer QTc interval (461.69 ± 39.94 vs. 450.75 ± 35.24, p = 0.024, OR = 1.01, 95 % CI 0.99-1.02), NIHSS score (60.9 % vs. 17.8 %, p < 0.001, OR = 14.90, 95 % CI 3.83-69.5), and thrombolysis (15 % vs. 5 %, p = 0.049, OR = 0.55, 95 % CI 0.10-2.55) were associated with poor neurological outcomes. However, when adjusted for age and NIHSS, heart rate and QTc were no longer statistically significant. None of the other ECG and echocardiographic variables were associated neurological outcomes. Conclusions: Elevated heart rate and longer QTc intervals may potentially predict poor neurological outcomes. Further studies are needed for validation and possible integration of these variables in outcome predicting models.

Association between initial complexity, frequency of refinements, treatment duration, and outcome in Invisalign orthodontic treatment.

INTRODUCTION: This study explored possible associations between treatment duration, initial complexity, outcomes in Invisalign therapy, and the number of refinements. METHODS: Three-dimensional models (initial, final, and refinements) of 355 Invisalign patients (114 males and 241 females; 33.8 ± 17.1 years) were analyzed using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index questionnaire tool in the Ortho Analyzer software (version 2.0; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) to calculate the weighted total and individual PAR index scores for each component of the PAR index. Data related to demographics, treatment duration, and the number of refinements were collected. RESULTS: Treatment duration increased as the number of refinements increased. Percent of improvement was higher in PAR ≥22 group than PAR <22 with an increase in the number of refinements: 83.3% vs 73.8% for 2 refinements; 94.7% vs 91.2% for 3 refinements; and 100% vs 85.7% for ≥4 refinements. Those who achieved great improvement or improvement and those who did not were significantly different in treatment duration (P <0.001 and P = 0.027), number of refinements (≥3 refinements; P <0.001), initial occlusal severity (PAR ≥22; P <0.01 and P = 0.031). Most subjects achieved improvement after the first refinement (64.5% for PAR <22 and 78.5% for PAR ≥22). Few had ≥4 refinements, and if they did, none achieved improvement with additional refinements. CONCLUSIONS: Initial complexity for an Invisalign case is associated with treatment duration, achieved outcomes, and the number of refinements. Treatment duration increased with an increased number of refinements. Great improvement or improvement for the first time dropped to 0 if additional refinements were carried out after 3. Therefore, performing additional refinements does not necessarily mean better occlusal outcomes.

Evaluation of interproximal reduction in individual teeth, and full arch assessment in clear aligner therapy: digital planning versus 3D model analysis after reduction.

AIM: To evaluate the correspondence between the interproximal reduction (IPR) performed clinically and that programmed in ClinCheck® and further assess which teeth showed an amount of implemented IPR (I-IPR) that corresponds with that programmed in ClinCheck®. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pre- (T0) and post-treatment (T1) ClinCheck® digital models for 75 subjects (30 males and 45 females), mean age (38 ± 15) years, were included. To calculate the amount of I-IPR, Ortho Analyzer software (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to measure the mesiodistal widths for the maxillary and mandibular teeth from second premolar to the contralateral second premolar on the initial (T0) and final (T1) STL models. I- IPR performed by tooth was obtained by comparing the mesiodistal width of each tooth at T0 and T1. The amount of programmed IPR (P-IPR) in ClinCheck® was compared to that implemented clinically using the following formula: IPR difference = (P-IPR) - (I-IPR). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed between the average value of digitally programmed and implemented IPR per tooth for both the maxillary (p < .0001) and mandibular (p < .0001) teeth. The mean P-IPR for the maxillary teeth was 0.28 ± 0.16 mm versus the mean I-IPR of 0.15 ± 0.15 mm. In the mandibular arch, the mean P-IPR was 0.31 ± 0.17 mm, while the I-IPR was 0.17 ± 0.16 mm. The mean I-IPR was consistently lower than the mean P-IPR regardless of teeth and sites (p < 0.0001). The difference between the P-IPR compared to the I-IPR was larger for mandibular anterior teeth than for maxillary anterior teeth (p = 0.0302) and larger for maxillary posterior teeth than mandibular posterior teeth (p = 0.0059). CONCLUSION: The amount of implemented-IPR in clear aligner therapy is less than that digitally programmed for most teeth. Regardless of the regions, I-IPR was consistently lower than that programmed. Mandibular anterior teeth and maxillary posterior teeth showed greater discrepancy between P-IPR and I-IPR than the maxillary anterior and mandibular posteriors. Further prospective studies are needed to determine the factors affecting the precision of IPR and the clinical implications of a significantly reduced I-IPR on treatment outcomes.

Examining the Development of Operative Autonomy in Vascular Surgery Training and When Trainees and Program Directors Agree and Disagree.

BACKGROUND: Lack of autonomy in the operating room (OR) during general surgery residency is a major contributing factor to low confidence operating independently after graduation. Although attempts to address decreased autonomy and development of entrustment in the OR are being made in general surgery programs, this issue has not been examined thoroughly in vascular surgery. We sought to determine barriers and opportunities for developing operative autonomy during vascular surgery training by surveying program directors (PDs) and trainees (integrated residents and fellows) in U.S. vascular surgery training programs. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was sent via email to all PDs (n = 155) and trainees (n = 516) in United States vascular surgery training programs. Demographics, academic characteristics, and responses regarding factors impacting the development of entrustment were collected. RESULTS: Thirty-five PDs and 100 trainees completed the survey (22.5% and 19.4% response rate, respectively). Sixty percent of trainees were integrated residents and 40% were fellows. Twenty percent of PDs and 33% of trainees were female, and 5% of all PDs and trainees were from underrepresented minorities. The single most positive factor affecting the development of autonomy according to trainees and PDs is familiarity of the faculty with the trainee. Both PDs and trainees thought the trainee's preparation for the case positively affected development of autonomy; however, more PDs believed that involvement with preoperative preparation in particular (marking the patient, consenting the patient, filling out a history and physical, prepping and draping the patient) was important (P < 0.05). PDs believed that duty-hour limitations negatively affected the trainee's ability to develop autonomy in the OR, whereas more trainees believed that hospital or OR efficiency policies played a negative role (P < 0.05). Finally, compared with trainees, PDs believed that the appropriate amount of time for safe struggle before the attending should take over the case was when OR efficiency was compromised or at any moment the trainee is unsure of themselves (P < 0.05); trainees believed that the attending should take over the case after the limit of their skill set or troubleshooting ability was reached (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Familiarity of the attending physician with the trainee is an important positive factor for development of entrustment and autonomy in vascular surgery trainees. Duty-hour limitations and belief of the need for hospital efficiency may negatively impact operative independence of trainees. An open discussion about balancing OR efficiency and trainees' safe struggle is essential to address the growth of independent operative skills in vascular surgery trainees.