Patient reported experiences and treatment outcomes of orthodontic patients treated within secondary care settings in the South West of England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the temporary cessation of orthodontic services on patients undergoing treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Two-phase multicentre service evaluation. SETTING: Secondary care orthodontic departments in the South West of England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phase 1 - Patient-Reported Experience Measure questionnaire (PREM). The questionnaire was distributed to patients who had undergone orthodontic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic once services had resumed. Phase 2 - assessment of treatment outcomes, specifically with the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index. A total of 280 PAR scores were obtained from a cohort of patients treated before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 711 PREM questionnaires were completed. Participants generally felt relaxed when visiting secondary care settings, orthodontic departments and whilst wearing orthodontic appliances during the pandemic. Nearly 40% of participants were concerned that the pandemic would impact on their treatment, particularly treatment length. Treatment outcomes revealed that patients treated before and during the pandemic experienced percentage PAR score reductions of 83.9% and 80.6%, respectively. Patients receiving treatment during the pandemic experienced longer treatment durations of 126 days. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic, low levels of anxiety were reported with respect to receiving orthodontic treatment in secondary care settings. Irrespective of the pandemic, a high standard of orthodontic treatment was provided. However, patient concerns regarding treatment length were justified.

An email triage model for personalising paediatric permanent tooth extractions under general anaesthesia.

It is important that dental extractions under general anaesthesia (GA) are planned appropriately to avoid a repeat GA in the future. Current guidelines recommend the input of an orthodontist when the treatment plan involves a permanent tooth extraction but the number of children undergoing GA extractions makes this challenging. A model has been developed where the records of children planned for GA extraction of permanent teeth are triaged, via secure email, by an orthodontist. The orthodontist identifies patients where modification of the extraction pattern could be beneficial to longer-term oral health. For some patients this is possible from review of the records alone, but the triage also identifies those patients with more complex occlusal problems who require a face to face orthodontic assessment. This service review found that 22% of the patients triaged had their treatment plan modified by the orthodontist. For 76% of the patients, a review of their records was sufficient before finalising the plan and only 24% needed a further face to face orthodontic assessment. This model has been successful in reducing the burden of an additional orthodontic assessment for most patients while providing personalised care.

Using the experience-based design approach to improve orthodontic care.

The experience-based design (ebd) approach is a method of measuring patient experience, which deliberately draws out subjective, emotional and personal feelings of the patients using a service. We describe how the experience-based design approach has been used to measure the experiences of teenage patients at orthodontic consultation appointments in a district general hospital. This has allowed us to identify the points in the patient's journey where they experience most anxiety and nervousness and to target service improvements in these areas. We found the ebd approach effective in measuring patient experience in a teenage patient population. We demonstrate how the service improvements implemented have reduced negative feelings during new patient consultations.

The management of otitis media with early routine insertion of grommets in children with cleft palate -- a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether early routine grommet insertion in children with cleft palate has a beneficial effect on hearing and speech and language development compared with conservative management. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, case series, and prospective and historical cohort studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was the effect of early routine grommet placement on the degree of conductive hearing loss. Secondary outcome measures included differences in hearing level, possible side effects, speech and language development, and quality of life. RESULTS: We identified 368 citations for review. From a review of the titles, 34 potentially relevant papers were selected. Of these, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria, including eight case series, six historical cohort studies, three prospective cohort studies, and one randomized trial. Most studies were either small or of poor quality or both. The results of the studies were contradictory, with some studies suggesting early placement of grommets was beneficial and others reporting there was no benefit. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence on which to base the clinical practice of early routine grommet placement in children with cleft palate.

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of ibuprofen and paracetamol in the control of orthodontic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Previous research has shown that ibuprofen provides effective relief from orthodontic pain. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether paracetamol (also known as acetaminophen) provided pain relief of equivalent or greater magnitude. METHODS: A multicenter, noninferiority, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 3 orthodontic clinics; 159 patients aged 12 to 16 years attending for routine orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated to receive either 400 mg of oral ibuprofen or 1 g of oral paracetamol an hour before and again 6 hours after separator placement. Pain scores were recorded on 7 visual analog scales (10 cm) over a week. The margin of equivalence was defined as 10 mm. RESULTS: Mean orthodontic pain from 2 hours after separation to bedtime was 8.5 mm (90% CI: lower, 3.7; upper,13.2) higher in the paracetamol group. This confidence interval lies partly outside the margin of equivalence, suggesting that paracetamol is not equivalent, and excludes the value 0, suggesting that ibuprofen is superior. From day 1 onward, there was a trend for patients who had taken ibuprofen to experience less pain at most time intervals compared with the paracetamol group. Two doses of ibuprofen, taken on the day of separator placement, were insufficient to control orthodontic pain on day 1 after placement. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of preoperative and postoperative ibuprofen is more effective than paracetamol in the control of orthodontic pain.

Report of an adverse incident in a randomized clinical trial.

This is a case report of a child who experienced a possible adverse reaction to paracetamol, in a randomized clinical trial comparing paracetamol with ibuprofen for control of orthodontic pain. Through this case report we highlight the importance of formulating a protocol for management of adverse events when designing a randomized clinical trial.

Potential hazards of orthodontic treatment--what your patient should know.

Orthodontic treatment carries with it the risks of tissue damage, treatment failure and an increased predisposition to dental disorders. The dentist must be aware of these risks in order to help the patient make a fully informed choice whether to proceed with orthodontic treatment. This paper outlines the potential hazards and suggests how they may be avoided or minimized.