Global survey to assess preferences when attending virtual orthodontic learning sessions: optimising uptake from virtual lectures.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding the issues concerning the conducting of virtual orthodontic learning sessions (VOLSs) is essential. This study aims to identify attendees- and host-related aspects that could optimise learning and uptake from the VOLSs. METHODOLOGY: Fourteen pre-validated questions were anonymously and electronically sent to 3000 orthodontic residents and specialists globally. The survey included demographic questions and questions to gauge attendees' engagement, memorising, and motivation-related factors. Reminders were sent at two-week intervals to non-respondents. The survey was closed when the sample size was met. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed. RESULTS: 593 orthodontic residents and specialists (294 males and 299 females), primarily junior orthodontists and residents aged between 25 and 35 years of age, completed the survey. Post-VOLS recording was highly requested by the participants (8.84/10, 95% CI 8.67-9.00) with no significant influence of demographics on this trend (p > 0.05). Most of the participants were in favour of short post-VOLSs feedback (6.79/10 95% CI 6.58-6.99) with significant differences (p = 0.048) between participants from different regions of the world. The average number of screenshots taken was 6.1 per lecture. The learners' interests in attending on-line lectures were mainly to learn new clinical orthodontic tips (96.8%). CONCLUSION: Implementing a short feedback survey after VOLSs, the provision of recording, and the provision of certificates of attendance need to be considered.

Knowledge and beliefs regarding temporomandibular disorders among orthodontists.

INTRODUCTION: This project was undertaken to accomplish 2 objectives: (1) to identify whether there is a discrepancy between orthodontists and experts in temporomandibular disorders (TMD) related to diagnosis and treatment of TMD patients, and (2) to influence the manner in which TMD curricula are taught in orthodontic residency programs, better preparing future orthodontic specialists to diagnose and treat (and refer) patients with TMD. METHODS: A survey invitation was e-mailed to 8870 members of the American Association of Orthodontists. Items were answered on a 6-point scale (0 = I don't know; 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree). A group consensus was attributed when more than 50% of the orthodontists supported a response. Previously published responses of TMD experts were used as a reference to evaluate the orthodontists' responses. Comparisons between the responses from the 2 groups were assessed using a z-test. RESULTS: Among the participants who responded to the questionnaire, 148 were residents, 1132 were private practitioners, and 61 were full-time faculty. Sixty-two percent of the participants did not think they received enough training in TMD during their orthodontic residency. Although 62% of participants indicated that they feel comfortable diagnosing TMD patients, 50.2% do not feel comfortable treating TMD patients. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups' responses under one-third of the questions. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that orthodontic residencies in the U.S. need to improve methods of teaching TMD concepts. Although most orthodontists feel comfortable diagnosing TMD patients, less than half feel comfortable treating those patients, and the difference in responses with the TMD expert group was significant in 71% of the questions.

Influence of clinicians' experience and gender on extraction decision in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether, in Class I borderline cases, experienced orthodontists choose nonextraction treatment more frequently than do orthodontists with less experience. A secondary aim was to evaluate whether clinicians' gender and place of education play a role in extraction decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was developed using three Class I borderline patient cases. The survey included questions about clinicians' demographics as well as questions about the selected cases. The survey was distributed to approximately 2000 clinicians through the American Association of Orthodontics. RESULTS: Of the 253 responses collected, a trend was observed wherein clinicians with more than 15 years of experience preferred an extraction treatment option more frequently than did clinicians with less than 5 years of experience. There was no association between gender and place of education and the decision to extract in the selected borderline cases. Crowding, patient's profile, and mandibular incisor inclination were among the top three reasons chosen by clinicians for both the extraction and nonextraction treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: A trend was observed in which clinicians with more experience chose an extraction treatment option more frequently in borderline cases than did those with less experience. Clinicians' gender did not play a role in extraction decision making.

Guidelines proposal for clinical recognition of mouth breathing children.

INTRODUCTION: Mouth breathing (MB) is an etiological factor for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) during childhood. The habit of breathing through the mouth may be perpetuated even after airway clearance. Both habit and obstruction may cause facial muscle imbalance and craniofacial changes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to propose and test guidelines for clinical recognition of MB and some predisposing factors for SDB in children. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 110 orthodontists regarding their procedures for clinical evaluation of MB and their knowledge about SDB during childhood. Thereafter, based on their answers, guidelines were developed and tested in 687 children aged between 6 and 12 years old and attending elementary schools. RESULTS: There was no standardization for clinical recognition of MB among orthodontists. The most common procedures performed were inefficient to recognize differences between MB by habit or obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines proposed herein facilitate clinical recognition of MB, help clinicians to differentiate between habit and obstruction, suggest the most appropriate treatment for each case, and avoid maintenance of mouth breathing patterns during adulthood.