Scholarlink

Background <p>To establish consensus of skeletal anchorage versus conventional anchorage in treating: 1. Maxillary transverse deficiency in growing and adult patients, 2. Class II skeletal disharmony due to mandibular retrusion in growing patients, 3. Class III skeletal disharmony in growing patients.</p> Methods <p>A four-rounds modified Delphi method was conducted. A steering committee performed a literature selection and compiled a list of 33 statements. An international panel of 25 experts in orthodontics agreed to participate. In each round, panelists were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale and provide comments. Statements that reached consensus were either accepted or rephrased. Statements that did not reach consensus were either rephrased, rejected, or split into two statements or merged with another.</p> Results <p>After the four rounds, 24 statements achieved consensus while 9 were rejected. The distribution of consensus statements was as follows: Maxillary transverse deficiency: 4 statements; Class II skeletal disharmony: 10 statements; Class III skeletal disharmony: 10 statements.</p> Conclusions <p>This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to provide guidance for orthodontists in choosing between skeletal and conventional anchorage for various treatment conditions. The study generated 24 consensus statements across three key domains. While the Delphi method provides valuable expert opinions, future studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings and address remaining uncertainties. Such efforts will aid in refining orthodontic treatment protocols and enhancing patient outcomes.</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

Skeletal versus conventional anchorage in dentofacial orthopedics: an international modified Delphi consensus study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年3月3日

查看全文
  • Lorenzo Franchi,
  • Maria Denisa Statie,
  • Tommaso Clauser,
  • Marco Migliorati,
  • Alessandro Ugolini,
  • Rosaria Bucci,
  • Roberto Rongo,
  • Riccardo Nucera,
  • Marco Portelli,
  • James A. McNamara,
  • Michele Nieri,
  • Sercan Akyalcin,
  • Fernanda Angelieri,
  • Daniele Cantarella,
  • Paolo Cattaneo,
  • Lucia Cevidanes,
  • Luca Contardo,
  • Marie Cornelis,
  • Renzo De Gabriele,
  • Carlos Flores Mir,
  • Daniela Garib,
  • Giorgio Iodice,
  • Antonino Lo Giudice,
  • Luca Lombardo,
  • Björn Ludwig,
  • Cesare Luzi,
  • Maria Costanza Meazzini,
  • Peter Ngan,
  • Tung Nguyen,
  • Alexandra Papadopoulou,
  • Spyridon N. Papageorgiou,
  • Jae Hyun Park,
  • Sabine Ruf,
  • Bernardo Souki,
  • Benedict Wilmes,
  • Heinz Winsauer

摘要

Background

To establish consensus of skeletal anchorage versus conventional anchorage in treating: 1. Maxillary transverse deficiency in growing and adult patients, 2. Class II skeletal disharmony due to mandibular retrusion in growing patients, 3. Class III skeletal disharmony in growing patients.

Methods

A four-rounds modified Delphi method was conducted. A steering committee performed a literature selection and compiled a list of 33 statements. An international panel of 25 experts in orthodontics agreed to participate. In each round, panelists were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale and provide comments. Statements that reached consensus were either accepted or rephrased. Statements that did not reach consensus were either rephrased, rejected, or split into two statements or merged with another.

Results

After the four rounds, 24 statements achieved consensus while 9 were rejected. The distribution of consensus statements was as follows: Maxillary transverse deficiency: 4 statements; Class II skeletal disharmony: 10 statements; Class III skeletal disharmony: 10 statements.

Conclusions

This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to provide guidance for orthodontists in choosing between skeletal and conventional anchorage for various treatment conditions. The study generated 24 consensus statements across three key domains. While the Delphi method provides valuable expert opinions, future studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings and address remaining uncertainties. Such efforts will aid in refining orthodontic treatment protocols and enhancing patient outcomes.