The perceptions of undertaking a higher degree alongside orthodontic speciality training: a cross-sectional survey of British Orthodontic Society members.

Introduction In the UK, orthodontic speciality training takes place over three years full-time. In addition to the clinical training, there is an expectation that trainees undertake a higher degree. Currently, there is little evidence regarding the impact of undertaking a higher degree on specialist orthodontists.Aims Investigate UK orthodontists' perceptions of undertaking a higher degree alongside speciality training.Materials and methods A cross-sectional research study involving the distribution of an anonymous, descriptive, online, questionnaire-based survey between May and June 2021 via the British Orthodontic Society. Data were obtained in relation to the impact of undertaking a higher degree on the completion of speciality training, research skills, delivery of patient care and career opportunities.Results In total, 166 questionnaires were completed (approximately 13.3% response rate). Most respondents 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that undertaking a higher degree had improved their scientific (77.1%) and critical appraisal skills (80.7%), job prospects (60.2%) and career opportunities (63.9%). Most respondents felt the benefits of the higher degree outweighed the associated costs (65.1%) and was a worthwhile component of training (69.3%).Conclusions Specialist orthodontists place a high value on undertaking a higher degree. The results of this questionnaire should be of importance to stakeholders involved in the development of the orthodontic curriculum.

National British Orthodontic Society (BOS) Orthognathic Audit 2017-2018.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a UK national clinical audit of orthognathic acceptance criteria and information provided to orthognathic patients before treatment. DESIGN: National clinical audit. SETTING: Data collected using Bristol Online Surveys. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-nine UK hospital orthodontic departments submitted data. METHODS: Data were collected at two time points using Bristol Online Surveys over a period of 12 months. These were before treatment at the first multidisciplinary clinic (MDT) and immediately after surgery. The data collected included: Index of Orthognathic Functional Treatment Need (IOFTN); Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN); age; previous orthodontic treatment; attendance at an MDT; treatment times; and information provision. RESULTS: Eighty-five units agreed to take part in the audit with 69 submitting data, giving a response rate of 81%. The data from 3404 patients were uploaded, 2263 before treatment and 1141 immediately after surgery. Of patients, 91.07% had an IOFTN score of 4 or 5 and 88.73% had an IOTN score of 4 or 5. The mean age at the first MDT was 22 years in the first cohort and 21 years and 4 months in the second immediate post-surgery cohort. Of patients, 37.93% had undergone some form of previous orthodontic treatment, but only 0.28% had undergone previous orthognathic treatment; 96.93% had an MDT confirm that orthodontic treatment by itself was insufficient to adequately correct their functional symptoms. The average treatment time from bond up to surgery was 2 years and 6 months. With respect to information provision, patients received information from a number of sources, principally the British Orthodontic Society (BOS) patient information leaflets and the BOS website Your Jaw Surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, the majority of orthognathic cases fulfil the criteria for acceptance for NHS-funded orthognathic treatment, as outlined by the Chief Dental Officer's interim guidance on orthognathic treatment. This suggests any prior approval process would not be a good use of NHS resources in the commissioning of orthognathic treatment.

Chewing gum vs. ibuprofen in the management of orthodontic pain, a multi-centre randomised controlled trial - the effect of anxiety.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is a common side effect of orthodontic treatment. An objective of this study, part of a large previously reported RCT on pain and analgesic use, was to determine the effect of anxiety on perceived pain and use of analgesia. METHODS: 1000 patients aged 11-17 years, undergoing upper and lower fixed appliance treatment in nine hospital departments were recruited into this two-arm parallel design randomised controlled trial. One arm was given sugar-free chewing gum and the other arm ibuprofen for pain relief. Neither the clinicians nor patients were blinded to assignment. In addition to recording pain experience and analgesic use for 3 days following appliance placement and first archwire change, each patient recorded their level of anxiety immediately following the fitting of the appliance and the first archwire change. RESULTS: 419 chewing gum group (84%) and 407 ibuprofen group (83%) questionnaires were returned following appliance placement, and 343 chewing gum group (70%) and 341 ibuprofen group (71%) questionnaires were returned following the first archwire change. The mean anxiety scores following fitting of the appliance and first archwire change were 2.7 (SD 2.1) and 1.6 (SD 1.8), respectively. There were weak but significant positive associations between anxiety scores and pain scores. Multi-level modelling produced a coefficient for anxiety of 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.28) for appliance placement, suggesting a small rise (0.23) on the 11-point pain scale for a one-point increase on the corresponding anxiety scale. Following archwire change, the corresponding coefficient was 0.32 (0.24-0.39). For ibuprofen use, again simple analyses suggested a relationship with anxiety. Multi-level logistic modelling produced an odds ratio for ibuprofen use of 1.11 (95% CI 1.07-1.15) at appliance placement and 1.21 (1.10-1.33) at the first archwire change. There was a 10-20% increase in the odds of using ibuprofen for each one-point increase on the anxiety scale. No such relationship was found between anxiety and chewing gum use. There were no adverse effects or harms reported during the trial. Approvals were granted by the Research Ethics Committee (08/H0106/139), R&D and MHRA (Eudract 2008-005522-36) and the trial was registered on the ISRCTN (79884739) and NIHR (6631) portfolios. Support was provided by the British Orthodontic Society Foundation. CONCLUSIONS: There was a weak positive correlation between anxiety reported and pain experienced following both the initial fitting of the fixed appliances and at the subsequent archwire change. Patients that were more anxious tended to take more ibuprofen for their pain relief.

What is the truth behind the smile?

A number of arguments surround orthodontics and orthodontic treatment and this article aims to discuss the current thinking and evidence base associated with these controversies.