Recognition of malocclusion: An education outcomes assessment

Brightman, Brenda B.; Hans, Mark G.; Wolf, Gary; Bernard, Hinsdale

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70231-3

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Study findings showing a moderate degree of agreement among examiners (Lischer, 1912;Simon;Hellman, 1943;Draker & Albany, 1960;Björk et al, 1964;Summers, 1971;Gravely & Johnson;Baume & Maréchaux, 1974;Asbell, 1990;Hennet et al, 1992;Katz, 1992a;Du et al;Brightman et al, 1999) demonstrate that methods featuring quantitative scales to measure malocclusion, combined with more strictly defined criteria and systematic training methods for practitioners, should be preferred in order to enhance communication and acquire data to support treatment recommendation and assess the actual severity of malocclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement Evaluation of a Newly Proposed System for Malocclusion Classification

Miguel-Neto

Nishio

Mucha

2010

Int. J. Odontostomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current malocclusion classification systems, routinely used in orthodontic practice, still yield different disagreement values among examiners who evaluate one and the same clinical case. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement effectiveness of a Newly Proposed System for malocclusion classification -in the anteroposterior orientation -, conceived by the present authors.Thirty-four examiners evaluated 15 malocclusion cases using Angle's, Katz's and the Newly Proposed System classifications to determine which system shows the highest degree of agreement and accuracy when results were communicated among examiners. A comparison of the classifications attributed to each individual case and the mean figures found for the total data in each classification showed that the methods advanced by the Newly Proposed System yielded a higher degree of agreement (73.33%) than Angle's (26.66%) and Katz's (26.66%). The Newly Proposed System proved to be an outstanding malocclusion classification system with a high degree of agreement among examiners. On the other hand, however, further studies involving a wider sample of malocclusions and a greater number of examiners are strongly recommended if more conclusive results are to be achieved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement Evaluation of a Newly Proposed System for Malocclusion Classification

Miguel-Neto

Nishio

Mucha

2010

Int. J. Odontostomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The study concluded that 4 years of undergraduate education did not improve the students’ orthodontic diagnostic skills. [24] Among the British dental schools that were studied, 75% did not expect their new graduates to be able to formulate an orthodontic treatment plan. They also believed that undergraduate training should be concentrated more on the diagnosis and recognition of a dental malocclusion, rather than on the formulation of a treatment plan.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A survey on orthodontic services provided by general dental practitioners

Jayaprakash¹,

Modi²,

Sapawat³

et al. 2019

J Family Med Prim Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this survey-based study was to recognize professional determinants that account for variations in the level of orthodontic services provided and which distinguish providers and nonproviders of orthodontic services. Multiple regression analysis revealed that four practitioner characteristics explained 43% of the variance in the number of orthodontic patients treated. Dentists who treated more orthodontic patients (1) treated more general practice patients, (2) frequently used multiple sources to keep up to date in orthodontics, (3) perceived their patient base to contain more children, and (4) were likely to have attended an orthodontic course. The null hypothesis that selected characteristics of dentists providing orthodontic services were no different from those of dentists not providing orthodontic services was rejected. The provision of orthodontic services was associated with a higher level of continuing orthodontic education and treating more general practice patients, especially children.

show abstract

“…[7][8][9] One especially troubling article compared the orthodontic knowledge of first-and fourth-year dental students and found no significant improvement in clinical diagnostic skills. 10 Another study discovered that a number of malocclusions encountered by recent graduates in general practice were not recognized or referred for specialist treatment. 11 Perhaps a reflection of inadequate predoctoral orthodontic training is the increased demand for orthodontic continuing education classes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An “Objectified” Competency‐Based Course in the Management of Malocclusion and Skeletal Problems

Lipp

2008

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A course developed at the New York University College of Dentistry provides third-year predoctoral students with instruction and formative experiences leading toward competence in the management of malocclusion and skeletal problems. Based on clearly defined evaluation criteria that can be objectively assessed, faculty and students share a common standardized language to evaluate malocclusion and skeletal problems. The course incorporates clinical simulation cases reflecting a variety of malocclusions and dentofacial conditions at different developmental stages. Formative experiences including interviewing techniques and cephalometric, facial, and study cast analyses build skills that are applied to diagnosis and treatment planning. Objectified competency evaluation criteria facilitate student instruction, faculty standardization, and assessment. Elements of this course may be used to create a more uniform competency-based approach to predoctoral orthodontic curricula across dental schools, while also providing a model for the development of courses in other areas of education, especially with regard to credentialing health providers.

show abstract

Recognition of malocclusion: An education outcomes assessment

Cited by 17 publications

References 4 publications

Agreement Evaluation of a Newly Proposed System for Malocclusion Classification

Agreement Evaluation of a Newly Proposed System for Malocclusion Classification

A survey on orthodontic services provided by general dental practitioners

An “Objectified” Competency‐Based Course in the Management of Malocclusion and Skeletal Problems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About