Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To assess Norwegian orthodontists’ perspectives concerning use of Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs).</p> Materials and methods <p>A web-based survey (78 questions) was distributed to all 345 members of the Norwegian Association of Orthodontists. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied.</p> Results <p>Seventy-one orthodontists responded (low response rate of 20.6%). Use of TADs in the buccal/lingual alveolar process, buccal shelf or retromolar pad (ABR) was reported by 41.5%; 29.2% were previous users, 9.2% intended future use, and 20.0% had never used. For palatal TADs, corresponding values were 29.2%, 15.4%, 23.1%, 32.3%; for miniplates: 0%, 10.8%, 21.5% and 67.7%. No associations were found between TAD use and orthodontists’ demographics, clinical experience, or practice type. Common indications included molar mesialization, distalization and posterior intrusion – the latter related to practitioner experience (<i>P</i> = 0.041). Frequent complications included screw loosening (91.3%) and soft-tissue overgrowth/irritation (80.4%). Barriers to use included procedural invasiveness and insufficient training, while discontinuation was attributed to complications, chair time, failures, invasiveness and patient discomfort. Over the preceding five years, 23.9% reported increased use, while 43.5% noted a decline. Among current users, satisfaction with ABR and palatal TADs was 69.2% and 70.6%, respectively. The respondents reported reduced treatment time (55.1%) and improved predictability (79%) when TADs were used.</p> Conclusions <p>Among responding Norwegian orthodontists, TAD use was reported by a moderate proportion, with a noted decline over the five years preceding the survey. Among users, satisfaction was generally high. All forms of relevant education were identified as key factors in their adoption.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Survey of Norwegian orthodontists on the use of temporary anchorage devices

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月4日

查看全文
  • Iselin Marie Tostrup,
  • Dimitrios Xenakis,
  • Lars Steinstad,
  • Stein Atle Lie,
  • Maria Mavragani

摘要

Objectives

To assess Norwegian orthodontists’ perspectives concerning use of Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs).

Materials and methods

A web-based survey (78 questions) was distributed to all 345 members of the Norwegian Association of Orthodontists. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied.

Results

Seventy-one orthodontists responded (low response rate of 20.6%). Use of TADs in the buccal/lingual alveolar process, buccal shelf or retromolar pad (ABR) was reported by 41.5%; 29.2% were previous users, 9.2% intended future use, and 20.0% had never used. For palatal TADs, corresponding values were 29.2%, 15.4%, 23.1%, 32.3%; for miniplates: 0%, 10.8%, 21.5% and 67.7%. No associations were found between TAD use and orthodontists’ demographics, clinical experience, or practice type. Common indications included molar mesialization, distalization and posterior intrusion – the latter related to practitioner experience (P = 0.041). Frequent complications included screw loosening (91.3%) and soft-tissue overgrowth/irritation (80.4%). Barriers to use included procedural invasiveness and insufficient training, while discontinuation was attributed to complications, chair time, failures, invasiveness and patient discomfort. Over the preceding five years, 23.9% reported increased use, while 43.5% noted a decline. Among current users, satisfaction with ABR and palatal TADs was 69.2% and 70.6%, respectively. The respondents reported reduced treatment time (55.1%) and improved predictability (79%) when TADs were used.

Conclusions

Among responding Norwegian orthodontists, TAD use was reported by a moderate proportion, with a noted decline over the five years preceding the survey. Among users, satisfaction was generally high. All forms of relevant education were identified as key factors in their adoption.