Eser Tüfekçi1, Samuel B Allen2, Al M Best3, Steven J Lindauer4. 1. a Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va. 2. b Private Practice, Longmont, Colo. 3. c Professor, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va. 4. d Professor and Chair, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Va.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate American and Canadian orthodontists' opinions and perceptions on the use of headgear in the treatment of Class II malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was sent to randomly chosen orthodontists (n = 1000). RESULTS: The study was completed by 948 orthodontists; 62% of the orthodontists indicated that they were using headgear in their practice. Those who were not using the appliance (38%) reported that this was mainly due to the availability of better Class II correctors in the market and lack of patient compliance. Of those who use headgear, 24% indicated that the emphasis on headgear use during their residency was an influential aspect of their decision making (P < .05). Nearly a quarter of those who do not use headgear reported that learning about other Class II correctors through continuing education courses was an important factor (P < .05). There was no difference between the headgear users and nonusers in the year and location of practice. Compared with previous studies, this study showed a decline in the use of headgear among orthodontists. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a decline, more than half of the orthodontists (62%) believe headgear is a viable treatment. Availability of Class II correctors in the market and familiarity with these appliances though continuing education courses are the reasons for the remaining 38% of orthodontists to abandon use of the headgear.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate American and Canadian orthodontists' opinions and perceptions on the use of headgear in the treatment of Class II malocclusions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was sent to randomly chosen orthodontists (n = 1000). RESULTS: The study was completed by 948 orthodontists; 62% of the orthodontists indicated that they were using headgear in their practice. Those who were not using the appliance (38%) reported that this was mainly due to the availability of better Class II correctors in the market and lack of patient compliance. Of those who use headgear, 24% indicated that the emphasis on headgear use during their residency was an influential aspect of their decision making (P < .05). Nearly a quarter of those who do not use headgear reported that learning about other Class II correctors through continuing education courses was an important factor (P < .05). There was no difference between the headgear users and nonusers in the year and location of practice. Compared with previous studies, this study showed a decline in the use of headgear among orthodontists. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a decline, more than half of the orthodontists (62%) believe headgear is a viable treatment. Availability of Class II correctors in the market and familiarity with these appliances though continuing education courses are the reasons for the remaining 38% of orthodontists to abandon use of the headgear.
Entities:
Keywords:
Class II corrector; Class II malocclusion; Headgear; Patient compliance
Authors: Márcio Bastos de Oliveira; Jean Nunes Dos Santos; Vanessa Mascarenhas Lima; Tiago Fonseca Lima da Fonte; Telma Martins de Araujo; Carlos Jorge Vogel; Emanuel Braga Rêgo Journal: Dental Press J Orthod Date: 2022-06-10