Bock N C, Ruf S
Department of Orthodontics, University of Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany,
J Orofac Orthop. 2015 Mar;76(2):113-24, 126-8. doi: 10.1007/s00056-014-0275-z.
The purpose of this survey was to determine how commonly, and in what clinical situations, German-based orthodontists use skeletal anchorage devices in daily clinical practice.
In early 2013, a set of questionnaires on the subject of skeletal anchorage devices was mailed to 2459 members of the German Orthodontic Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kieferorthopädie, DGKFO). The questions dealt separately with mini screws (MSCs) and osseointegrated palatal implants (OPIs). The addresses were asked whether or not, as well as how frequently and in what clinical situations, they used these MSCs and/or OPIs, what their experience was, and to elaborate on their reasons for using or not using these devices.
The rate of returned questionnaires was 48 %. To correctly interpret our data, it should be kept in mind that an unknown number of respondents did not distinguish between OPIs and palatally inserted MSCs. Overall, 62 % indicated that they did use MSCs and/or OPIs, although most of them (> 50 %) infrequently (≤ 2 new patients/3 months). Only ≤ 2 % were frequent users (> 2 new patients/week). While most users (> 70 %) indicated that their experience was mostly good, only ≤ 50 % considered the devices easy and trouble-free to use in daily clinical practice. The median percentage of insertion procedures conducted by the respondents themselves was 2 % for MSCs and 0 % for OPIs. Many of the non-users indicated that their treatment concept did not include suitable clinical indications (≥ 50 %), expressed skepticism about the success rates (56 % of MSC and 21 % of OPI non-users), or thought that the insertion procedures involved were too complex or time-consuming (33 % of MSC and 56 % of OPI non-users).
A total of 62 % of German-based orthodontists participating in this survey indicated using skeletal anchorage devices, although most of them infrequently. Major reasons for non-use were lack of clinical indications, skepticism about the success rate of MSCs, and overly complex or time-consuming procedures of surgical OPI insertion.
本次调查旨在确定以德国为基地的正畸医生在日常临床实践中使用骨锚固装置的频率以及在何种临床情况下使用。
2013年初，一套关于骨锚固装置主题的问卷被邮寄给德国正畸协会（Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kieferorthopädie, DGKFO）的2459名成员。问题分别涉及微型螺钉（MSCs）和骨整合腭部种植体（OPIs）。询问这些受访者是否使用过以及使用这些MSCs和/或OPIs的频率和临床情况、他们的经验，并详细说明他们使用或不使用这些装置的原因。
问卷回复率为48%。为了正确解释我们的数据，应记住有未知数量的受访者未区分OPIs和腭部插入的MSCs。总体而言，62%的受访者表示他们确实使用了MSCs和/或OPIs，尽管他们中的大多数人（>50%）使用频率较低（≤每3个月2名新患者）。只有≤2%的人是频繁使用者（>每周2名新患者）。虽然大多数使用者（>70%）表示他们的经验大多良好，但只有≤50%的人认为这些装置在日常临床实践中易于使用且无故障。受访者自己进行的植入手术的中位数百分比，MSCs为2%，OPIs为0%。许多非使用者表示他们的治疗理念不包括合适的临床适应症（≥50%），对成功率表示怀疑（56%的MSCs非使用者和21%的OPIs非使用者），或者认为所涉及的植入手术过于复杂或耗时（33%的MSCs非使用者和56%的OPIs非使用者）。
参与本次调查的以德国为基地的正畸医生中，共有62%表示使用骨锚固装置，尽管他们中的大多数人使用频率较低。不使用的主要原因是缺乏临床适应症、对MSCs成功率的怀疑以及手术OPI植入过程过于复杂或耗时。
