No abstract

Purpose: Based on Q methodology, this study investigated the motivation of orthodontic treatment for patients and their parents. Through investigation, this paper attempts to explore the motivational factors of CLP and NON-CLP children and their parents, which are different or general. Patients and methods: Q methodology involves 4 phases. (1) Interviews of CLP (N=5), NON-CLP (N=5) patients generated 30 statements (Q-set 1) and CLP (N=5), NON-CLP (N=5) patients' parents produced 36 statements (Q-set 2) about different reasons to pursue orthodontic care. (2) P-set: recruitment participants. The sample comprised 40 CLP patients (G1) and 40 NON-CLP patients (G2) aged 9-16 years, 40 CLP patients' parents (G3) and 40 NON-CLP patients' parents (G4) wanting their children to have orthodontic treatment. (3) Q-sort: 4 groups ranked statements in order of comparative significance using enforced distribution grids (G1, G2 ranked Q-set 1; G3, G4 ranked Q-set 2). (4) Analysis: using the PQMehtod 2.35 vision to analyze data. Results: Three factors in each group were identified as representing the most widespread views of the majority of the participants, described as G1: (1) aesthetics, (2) preparation for other oral treatments, (3) timely. G2: (1) admiration of others, aesthetics, (2) oral function, (3) oral hygiene and improvement of smile. G3: (1) worrying about the future of children, parents' responsibilities, children's feelings; (2) mental health, timely; (3) parents' responsibilities, ready for treatment. G4: (1) aesthetics, children's will; (2) future problems, timely; (3) timely, parents' responsibility and no need to worry about physical problems. Conclusion: CLP and NON-CLP patients and parents have different orthodontic treatment motives, yet, they still shared 3 global motivation themes, respectively. Consideration of these motives may help clinicians develop their treatment discussions with patients and parents, which could consequently improve their cooperation and may achieve a more satisfactory outcome.

Objectives: To evaluate the tooth lengths, crown to root ratios (CRRs), and alveolar bone support (ABS) around cleft-adjacent maxillary central incisors (U1s) in patients with unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA) and to investigate the relationships between CRR and ABS. Design: This is a retrospective study. Setting: Cleft Lip and Palate Care Center of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai, China. Patients: Fifty-eight Chinese patients with UCLA. Main Outcome Measure: Cone beam computed tomography data from 58 nonsyndromic patients with UCLA (36 males, 22 females; mean age = 12.65 ± 3.64 years) were evaluated. Crown length and root length, alveolar bone thickness (ABT), and the distances between the cementoenamel junction and alveolar bone crest on 4 surfaces of cleft-adjacent U1 were measured and compared with those of noncleft side in the same patients. Crown to root ratio and frequency of dehiscence were calculated and comparisons were also made between cleft and noncleft sides. Regression analysis was performed to explore the association between CRR and ABS. Results: The CRR of cleft-adjacent U1 and alveolar bone crest heights (ACHs) on the 4 surfaces were significantly greater than those of noncleft side ( P < .01). A 3 mm labial, all lingual, and apico-distal ABTs decreased on the cleft side ( P < .01). A positive correlation was found between lingual ACH and CRR ( R = 0.316, P < .05), between the 3 mm ( R = 0.417, P < .05) and 6 mm labial ( R = 0.448, P < .05) ABT and CRR. A negative correlation was found between the 3 mm and 6 mm labial ABTs and the root length. Conclusions: It can be suggested that the CRR is related to ACH and ABT. The lingual ACH, the 3 mm, and 6 mm labial ABTs tend to increase with the increasing CRR.

No abstract