RESUMO
(1) Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess patients' and practitioners' reported experience measures (PREMs) following a first standard orthodontic consultation (face-to-face consultation) versus a first orthodontic teleconsultation (video-assisted remote orthodontic consultation).; (2) Materials and Methods: This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial in which 60 patients were randomly allocated to two groups. In the control group, patients received a first face-to-face consultation (n = 30) whereas, in the test group, patients received a first orthodontic teleconsultation (n = 30). Patients as well as the orthodontic practitioners completed questionnaires after the experience. (3) Results: From the patients' point of view, overall satisfaction was comparable between the control group and the test group (p = 0.23). Quality of communication with the clinician, understanding of the explanations provided and a sense of privacy were also comparable between the two groups. However, from the practitioners' perspective, overall satisfaction after the face-to-face consultation was significantly higher than after the first remote consultation (p < 0.01). (4) Conclusions: In the context of a first orthodontic consultation, teleorthodontics appears to be an interesting and complementary approach to a classical face-to-face appointment, but which should by no means become systematic.
RESUMO
Introduction: The concept of teleorthodontics was recently born; the Covid-19 crise has participated to the emergence and the amplification of this phenomenon. Objective: The main aim of the present systematic review was to evaluate the teleorthodontics relevance. Method: An electronic and manual search was performed in four databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane Library) up to December 2021 according to PRISMA guidelines. Both prospective and retrospective studies, as well as case reports, case series and satisfaction surveys published in English or in French without time restriction were included. Two independant reviewers were involved in the selection of the studies and a third reviewer was required in case of disagreement. A bias assessment was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. Results: Out of 1757 articles, 22 articles published mainly between 2019 and 2021 and with varying levels of evidence, were included. Considering the results obtained, different concepts were discussed (time management, quality of communication, reliability and use of tools, satisfaction, quality of human relations, emergency management, compliance). Conclusions: Teleorthodontics is an interesting and complementary tool that is, in no way, a systematic alternative to face-to-face orthodontic appointments in the office. However, many essential aspects of telemedicine in orthodontics, such as data protection, still need to be investigated in order to fully analyze this tool.
Introduction: Le concept de téléorthodontie a récemment vu le jour ; la crise de la Covid-19 a fortement participé à l'émergence et à l'amplification de ce phénomène. Objectif: L'objectif premier de cette revue systématique de la littérature était d'évaluer la pertinence de la téléorthodontie. Méthode: Une recherche électronique a été menée dans quatre bases de données (PubMed, Scopus, Embase et Cochrane Library), complétée par une recherche manuelle jusqu'à fin décembre 2021 conformément aux directives PRISMA. Tous types d'études cliniques, prospectives ou rétrospectives, y compris les rapports et les séries de cas ainsi que les enquêtes de satisfaction publiées en anglais ou en français sans restriction de temps, ont été inclus. Deux auteurs indépendants ont été impliqués dans la sélection des études et un troisième auteur a été sollicité en cas de désaccord. Une évaluation des biais a été réalisée à partir du Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. Résultats: Sur les 1757 articles, 22 articles, publiés majoritairement entre 2019 et 2021 et de niveaux de preuve variables, ont été inclus. Tenant compte des résultats obtenus, différentes notions ont pu être discutées (gestion du temps, qualité de la communication, fiabilité des outils, facilité d'utilisation, satisfaction, qualité du rapport humain, gestion des urgences, observance). Conclusions: La téléorthodontie est un outil intéressant et complémentaire à une approche classique pour certaines indications. Cependant, elle ne constitue en aucun cas une alternative systématique aux rendez-vous orthodontiques en présentiel au cabinet. De nombreux aspects pourtant essentiels (protection des données, etc.) doivent être encore investigués pour analyser pleinement cet outil.
