S Kotecha1, S Gale2, L Khamashta-Ledezma3, J Scott4, M Seedat5, M Storey6, A Ulhaq7, J Scholey1. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Royal Stoke University Hospital, Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST4 6QG. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Queen's Hospital, Belvedere Road, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, DE13 0RB; 3. 1] Department of Orthodontics, Croydon University Hospital, 530 London Road, Croydon, CR7 7YE [2] Department of Orthodontics, Eastman Dental Hospital, 256 Gray's Inn Road, London, WC1X 8LD. 4. Department of Orthodontics, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, PL6 8DH. 5. Department of Oral Health, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UY. 6. Department of Orthodontics, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, BD5 0NA; 7. Department of Orthodontics, Edinburgh Dental Institute, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh, EH3 9HA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine GDP knowledge and willingness to supervise orthodontic retention and provide replacements retainers. DESIGN: An audit sampling GDPs from six centres within England (Bradford, Cambridge, Burton-Upon-Trent, Croyden, Norwich and Plymouth). A gold standard of 100% of GDPs should be aware of commonly used retainers and be able to provide replacements was selected. METHOD: Overall, 1,053 postal questionnaires were sent to local GDPs. The questions covered knowledge and provision of various retainers, practitioner background and education. GDP satisfaction with the information provided by the orthodontist at discharge was also explored. RESULTS: Five hundred and two questionnaires were received (response rate of 48%). The majority of GDPs (64%) were trained in the UK. Awareness of vacuum-formed, Hawley and fixed retainers was generally high. A significantly smaller number of GDPs were willing to prescribe, fit or review the retainers. The most common reasons for reluctance in provision were insufficient knowledge, financial and time constraints. Over two thirds (72%) of GDPs would like further training on retention. CONCLUSION: This audit highlights a need for increased training at undergraduate and postgraduate levels to update practitioners about contemporary retention practice. Better communication is required from orthodontists to GDPs to ensure that on discharge the dentist is aware of the retainer type and retention regime.
OBJECTIVE: To determine GDP knowledge and willingness to supervise orthodontic retention and provide replacements retainers. DESIGN: An audit sampling GDPs from six centres within England (Bradford, Cambridge, Burton-Upon-Trent, Croyden, Norwich and Plymouth). A gold standard of 100% of GDPs should be aware of commonly used retainers and be able to provide replacements was selected. METHOD: Overall, 1,053 postal questionnaires were sent to local GDPs. The questions covered knowledge and provision of various retainers, practitioner background and education. GDP satisfaction with the information provided by the orthodontist at discharge was also explored. RESULTS: Five hundred and two questionnaires were received (response rate of 48%). The majority of GDPs (64%) were trained in the UK. Awareness of vacuum-formed, Hawley and fixed retainers was generally high. A significantly smaller number of GDPs were willing to prescribe, fit or review the retainers. The most common reasons for reluctance in provision were insufficient knowledge, financial and time constraints. Over two thirds (72%) of GDPs would like further training on retention. CONCLUSION: This audit highlights a need for increased training at undergraduate and postgraduate levels to update practitioners about contemporary retention practice. Better communication is required from orthodontists to GDPs to ensure that on discharge the dentist is aware of the retainer type and retention regime.
Authors: Heidi Rowland; Lisa Hichens; Alison Williams; Darren Hills; Norman Killingback; Paul Ewings; Steven Clark; Anthony J Ireland; Jonathan R Sandy Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.650