Schreuder Marissa Manon, Renkema Anne-Marie, Kuijpers-Jagtman Anne Marie, Padmos Jens Anne Daniel
Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, School of Dental Medicine/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Murtenstrasse 11, CH-3008, Bern, Switzerland.
Eur J Orthod. 2025 Apr 8;47(3). doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjaf020.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To assess Dutch dentists' experience, competence and opinions on various aspects of orthodontic retention with bonded retainers and identify any gaps that may exist in practice and communication.
MATERIALS/METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was sent to 1000 randomly selected general dentists, covering their (i) experience, competence and opinion in bonded retainer monitoring and maintenance, (ii) knowledge of unintentional active bonded retainers, (iii) responsibility for bonded retainers, and (iv) orthodontic practitioners' communication.
The response rate was 23.6% (n = 236). Orthodontic treatment was performed by 24% of dentists. Dentists were familiar with follow-up (98%), repairs (95%) and placement (77%) of bonded retainers. The more hours involved in treatment, the more competent they felt in repairing BRs (P = .025). However, over a quarter felt insufficiently competent in repairing (26%) and placement (33%) of bonded retainers. When patients requested their dentist to remove their bonded retainer, 89% informed them about possible consequences, and 41% referred them to their orthodontic practitioner. Awareness of torsional movements of anterior teeth due to unintentionally active bonded retainers was high (77%). Almost two thirds (64%) believed that dentists should check bonded retainers one year after placement. Respondents felt insufficiently informed by orthodontic practitioners regarding several aspects of the retention phase. One-third (34%) would appreciate additional training.
The main limitations of this study are the low response rate, which could result in non-response bias, and the focus on bonded retainers only.
CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Dutch dentists are well informed about the possibility of torsional movements due to unintentionally active bonded retainers. Clear communication between orthodontic practitioners and dentists is essential for effective long-term follow-up and shared responsibility. Knowledge and skills regarding monitoring and maintenance of bonded retainers should be integrated into dental curricula and postgraduate courses.
背景/目的:评估荷兰牙医在使用粘结式保持器进行正畸保持各方面的经验、能力和意见,并找出实践和沟通中可能存在的差距。
材料/方法:向1000名随机挑选的普通牙医发送了一份基于网络的问卷,内容涵盖他们(i)在粘结式保持器监测和维护方面的经验、能力和意见,(ii)对无意激活的粘结式保持器的了解,(iii)对粘结式保持器的责任,以及(iv)正畸从业者的沟通情况。
回复率为23.6%(n = 236)。24%的牙医进行过正畸治疗。牙医们熟悉粘结式保持器的随访(98%)、修复(95%)和放置(77%)。参与治疗的时间越长,他们在修复粘结式保持器方面就越有信心(P = 0.025)。然而,超过四分之一的人认为自己在粘结式保持器的修复(26%)和放置(33%)方面能力不足。当患者要求牙医取下他们的粘结式保持器时,89%的人告知了他们可能的后果,41%的人将他们转介给正畸医生。对无意激活的粘结式保持器导致前牙扭转运动的认识较高(77%)。近三分之二(64%)的人认为牙医应在放置粘结式保持器一年后进行检查。受访者认为正畸从业者在保持阶段的几个方面提供的信息不足。三分之一(34%)的人希望接受更多培训。
本研究的主要局限性是回复率低,这可能导致无应答偏差,且仅关注粘结式保持器。
结论/启示:荷兰牙医充分了解无意激活的粘结式保持器导致扭转运动的可能性。正畸从业者和牙医之间的清晰沟通对于有效的长期随访和共同责任至关重要。粘结式保持器监测和维护的知识与技能应纳入牙科课程和研究生课程。