General dentist orthodontic practice in foreign legal systems

Maruo, Ivan Toshio; Saga, Armando Yukio; Colucci, Maria da Glória; Tanaka, Orlando Motohiro; Mikami, Hiroshi

doi:10.1590/s2176-94512012000200013

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present orthodontic scope of practice for general dentists varies between countries. IO practice, and in some cases corrective orthodontics, is considered within the scope of GDPs 16 but the present findings report that approximately 85% of dentists do not believe the current scope is clear in its guidelines. This is of concern as more than three-in-five dentists reported their practice is influenced by their understanding of the scope of practice.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Interceptive orthodontic practices in general dentistry: a cross-sectional study

Currell

Vaughan

Dreyer

2019

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To evaluate the current practice of interceptive orthodontics undertaken by general dental practitioners and identify influencing factors. Materials and methods Printed questionnaires were provided to 200 registered Australian general dental practitioners. Participants were questioned about their current confidence, attitudes, and practice, related to interceptive orthodontics in general dentistry. Results The decision to practise interceptive orthodontics (17.4% of respondents) was strongly dependent on the confidence of the dentist (x2 = 48.693; df = 4; p < 0.001). It was also found that the provision of interceptive orthodontics was prevented by its perceived importance (x2 = 23.559; df = 5; p < 0.001) and benefit in a general dental setting (x2 = 9.411; df = 4; p = 0.035). The provision of more education was not shown to likely increase the number of dentists performing interceptive orthodontics. Low clinician confidence in the provision of interceptive orthodontics was also shown to result in orthodontic consultation prior to performing treatment (x2 = 31.782; df = 16; p = 0.004) or referral to an orthodontist (x2 = 42.465; df = 12; p < 0.001). Conclusions Interceptive orthodontics was not practised by most dentists. This decision was shown to be influenced by the clinicians’ confidence, further education or training, perceived importance of interceptive orthodontics and the impact that early intervention might have on future orthodontic treatment. Consideration should also be given to clarifying the orthodontic scope of practice for general dentists, in order to reduce the confusion influencing the provision of orthodontic care.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%