Orthodontists' knowledge and experience on referring orthognathic surgery patients to psychological support.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate orthodontists' knowledge and experience on referring orthognathic surgery patients to psychological support. METHODS: A 15-question questionnaire was sent to orthodontists who were members of the Turkish Orthodontic Society via e­mail. The participants were informed about the purpose of the study and were provided a link to access the questionnaire via the internet. In order to increase the feedback rate, two reminders were sent to all addresses. Members who did not perform orthognathic surgery were not included in the study. RESULTS: Of the 1615 members who were sent the link, 233 responded and filled out the electronic questionnaire, while 12 participants who stated that they did not treat orthognathic patients were excluded. Most of the participants stated that they did not refer their patients to psychological support. The main reasons for not recommending psychological support to patients was fear about the reaction of the patients and that patients might refuse to visit the psychologist/psychiatrist. The most common reasons for referring patients to psychological support were the following: patient had past/current psychological problem, unrealistic expectations, recent concerns regarding orthognathic surgery and see no significant need for surgery. In all, 98% of participants stated that they did not use psychological questionnaire forms for their patients. The vast majority of participants stated that they were not trained in psychological assessment/treatment, and a large majority of participants thought that it would be beneficial to receive training in this field. CONCLUSION: Most orthodontists do not receive adequate training in psychology and do not refer orthognathic surgery patients to psychological support. It would be beneficial to offer clinicians training in this field.

Evaluation of the quality of information on the internet about 2019 coronavirus outbreak in relation to orthodontics.

This study aims to evaluate the content of information in three different search engines in terms of orthodontics as the source of information at the current stage of the COVID-19 outbreak. An internet search was conducted on April 10th, 2020, using the most popular search engines: GoogleTM, BingTM, and Yahoo!® with the keyword "coronavirus orthodontics". Top 10 websites were evaluated for each search engine. After excluding duplicates the remaining 23 sites were saved in Microsoft Excel programme and evaluated by two independent researchers (HKO and RSO; both experienced orthodontists) using the modified DISCERN tool and JAMA benchmarks. The websites were also classified as "useful, misleading and news updates". Sixty one percent of the websites were classified as useful, 26% as misleading, and 13% as news updates. Most of the authors of the websites were unknown (35%) and followed by orthodontists (30%). The DISCERN and JAMA scores of the four websites were excellent and their target audience were orthodontists. The average modified DISCERN score of 23 websites was moderate (average score 2,8). Useful websites had a significantly higher number of DISCERN and JAMA scores than the misleading websites (p < 0.05). Most of the information available in three different search engines about orthodontics related to COVID-19 were useful. The most reliable websites belonged to American Association of Orthodontists (AAO), Australian Society of Orthodontists (ASO), and British Orthodontic Society (BOS), and they appeared on the first page of the GoogleTM.

Impact of Orthodontic Treatment Complexity on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life in Turkish Patients: A Prospective Clinical Study.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate the relationship between orthodontic treatment complexity and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) and to assess the impact of malocclusion and orthodontic treatment on OHRQoL in orthodontic patients with regard to gender and age. METHODS: This prospective clinical study included 102 patients aged 13-35 years who were referred to the orthodontic department. The impact of orthodontic treatment complexity was assessed using the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). The Turkish version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) was used to examine the subjects for OHRQoL before and after treatment. The before and after treatment data (T1 and T2, respectively) were tested using a paired t-test, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Bonferroni test was used to assess the differences in OHIP-14 across groups, as defined by the ICON. The cross-sectional comparisons between genders and age groups before and after treatment were tested using the Student's t-test. The level of significance was set to a p value of 0.05. RESULTS: Patients with moderate treatment complexity reported a significantly negative impact on the psychological disability domain compared to the difficult treatment complexity. OHRQoL improved after treatment. Females showed statistically significant and highest scores on the physical pain domain compared to males. Adults showed a statistically significant negative impact on the psychological domains before treatment as well as a statistically significant positive impact on the psychological disability domain after treatment compared to adolescents (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Orthodontic treatment improves OHRQoL, and orthodontic treatment complexity does not seem to have an impact on OHRQoL.

Orthognathic Surgery Treatment Need in a Turkish Adult Population: A Retrospective Study.

Objectives: Limited information exists on orthognathic procedures and respective dentofacial deformities in Turkey. This retrospective study assessed the orthognathic surgery procedures in two universities, using the Index of Orthognathic Functional Treatment Need (IOFTN), and compared the IOFTN grades according to gender as well as sagittal and vertical skeletal relationships. Material and Methods: Records of 200 consecutive patients (120 females, 80 males, mean age = 23.4 (SD: 5.4) years) who received orthognathic treatment (2014-2018) were analyzed. Sagittal (ANB angle) and vertical skeletal type (GoGnSN angle), osteotomies, and IOFTN scores were recorded. Results: Class III, II, and I malocclusions formed 69%, 17.5%, and 13.5% of the samples, respectively. Class III skeletal relationships (69%) and high-angle cases (64%) were the most prevalent (p < 0.05). IOFTN scores were unevenly distributed among genders (p < 0.05) and the prevalent scores were 5.3 (40.5%), 4.3 (15.5%), 5.4 (13%), and 5.2 (7.5%), with 94% scoring 4 or 5 (great and very great functional need). Bimaxillary osteotomies were the most prevalent (55%), followed by LeFort I (32%), and 26% had genioplasty. Conclusion: IOFTN is a reliable tool to identify patients in need of orthognathic surgery. Class III malocclusions and Class III sagittal skeletal relationships were more common in this sample. Comparatively, a higher number of patients had genioplasty as a part of their treatment.

The quality of Internet information on lingual orthodontics in the English language, with DISCERN and JAMA.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the quality of Internet information in the English language about lingual orthodontics. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Internet search using the keywords 'lingual orthodontics', 'lingual braces', 'lingual treatment' and 'lingual brackets' was conducted on the four most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing and AOL) on 4 February 2017. The first 10 websites for each keyword and search engine were screened. After excluding duplicates and irrelevant websites, the remaining were assessed using the DISCERN tool and JAMA benchmarks. RESULTS: Of the original 160 websites found, 132 were excluded (102 duplicates, 30 unrelated). The authors of the remaining 28 websites were orthodontists (39.2%), professional organisations (21%), unspecified (17.8%), dentists (7.1%), dental hygienists (7.1%) and patients (7.1%). The mean overall DISCERN score for the 28 websites was poor (36.3). Only 1/28 websites met all four principles of JAMA, four websites met three criteria, 10 websites met two criteria and 13 websites met one criterion. CONCLUSION: Online information on lingual orthodontics was of poor quality; moreover, unbiased and balanced information was rare. Orthodontists should be aware that the average quality of information on the Internet about lingual orthodontics might be inadequate and should direct patients to higher-quality websites.

Evaluation of Internet Information about Lingual Orthodontics Using DISCERN and JAMA Tools.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the quality and reliability of websites providing information about lingual orthodontics in Turkish. METHODS: An internet search was conducted on March 6th, 2017, using popular search engines in Turkey: GoogleTM, bingTM, YAHOO!®, and Yandex® for the keywords "lingual ortodonti, görünmeyen braketler, and görünmeyen teller". The top 10 websites for each keyword and search engine were examined, and duplicates, irrelevant websites, websites showing scientific articles, and orthodontic supplies market sites were excluded. The remaining 58 sites were assessed using the DISCERN instrument and JAMA benchmarks. RESULTS: The authors of the remaining sites were orthodontists (48%) and dentists (5%), while 46% of the websites did not state author names. Ninety-one percent lacked references, and 87% lacked a date. Only 30% were balanced and unbiased. The mean overall DISCERN score was very poor (43%) or poor (40%). Of the 58 websites, 48% (28 sites) met authorship, 7% (4 sites) attribution, 71% (41 sites) disclosed website ownership, and 3% (2) currency benchmarks of JAMA. CONCLUSION: Information on the internet related to lingual orthodontics is poor. Clinicians should warn patients that information on the internet about lingual orthodontics might be inadequate, and they should direct patients to higher-quality websites.