3.9 Article

Orthodontic extraction practices: a cross-sectional survey of orthodontists in Australia

Journal

AUSTRALASIAN ORTHODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 227-236

Publisher

SCIENDO
DOI: 10.2478/aoj-2022-0013

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Society of Orthodontists Foundation for Research and Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study surveyed Australian-based orthodontists to gather their opinions on extraction practices. Results showed that orthodontists extracted permanent teeth in approximately 20% of patients with a Class I malocclusion. The majority of orthodontists believed that their extraction rates had not changed over the past 5 to 10 years. However, those with decreased extraction rates reported an increased use of interproximal reduction (IPR) and arch lengthening procedures.
Objective To survey Australian-based orthodontists regarding their opinions on their extraction practices. Method A pilot-tested electronic-questionnaire was distributed to 465 members of the Australian Society of Orthodontists. Questions pertained to their demographic details, current extraction rates, changes in prescribed orthodontic extraction patterns over the past 5 to 10 years and the factors that may have influenced decisions. Results A response rate of 35.05% was recorded. Orthodontists estimated that they extracted permanent teeth in 21.03% and 22.06% of recently treated adults and children/adolescents presenting with a Class I malocclusion. Respondents were less comfortable carrying out non-extraction treatment in child/adolescent patients (15.4%) than in adult patients (34.7%) when crowding was greater than 6 mm. Most orthodontists (55.89%) who had practiced for more than 5 years believed that the number of patients that were treated by extractions was unchanged over the past 5 to 10 years while 34.55% believed that the proportion had decreased. More experienced orthodontists tended to report increased rather than decreased extraction rates (p = 0.0102). Most of those (88.1-93.17%) who reported decreased extraction rates considered facial aesthetics had a moderate/major influence on their extraction decisions. The increased use of 'combined' interproximal reduction (IPR) and arch lengthening in children/adolescents (55.8%) and IPR in adults (85%) was reported by those whose extraction rates had decreased. Conclusions Orthodontists extracted permanent teeth in just over 20% of their patients who presented with a Class I malocclusion. Most orthodontists considered that their extraction rates had not changed over the past 5 to 10 years. The increased use of IPR with or without arch lengthening procedures, was reported by those whose extraction rates had decreased over the same time period.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available