Availability of 'Do-It-Yourself' orthodontics in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the number of companies providing Do-It-Yourself (DIY) orthodontics and explore information available on websites for DIY brace providers operating in the UK. DESIGN: Web search and review of websites providing DIY braces. SETTING: Leeds, UK. METHODS: A Web search was completed in November 2020 and April 2021 of all companies providing DIY braces for UK consumers. Each website was evaluated, and the following data collected: name; year started operating; costs; process; involvement of a dental professional; average 'treatment' length; retention; consent process; information on risks and benefits; aligner material; social media presence; age suitability; and consumer ratings on Trustpilot. Quality of website information was assessed via the DISCERN tool. RESULTS: Seven DIY orthodontic companies were operating in the UK. Websites reviewed revealed the following: product costs were in the range of £799-£1599, 'treatment' length quotes were in the range of 4-12 months; Trustpilot reviews were in the range of 1.6-4.8 stars; and websites claimed their aligners were suitable for individuals with an age range of 12-18 years. Quality of content regarding risks described on websites varied, and there was limited information regarding involvement of a dental professional. Quality of websites information scored 'poor' or 'very poor' on the DISCERN scoring. CONCLUSIONS: There has been an increase in the number of DIY orthodontic companies operating in the UK over the last three years. There is a need to determine whether these products constitute dental treatment in their own right. If so, it is crucial to ensure these are regulated appropriately with adequate information available to satisfy informed consent and have greater transparency over dental professional involvement to safeguard the public.

A quality improvement project to assess the use of preventative measures against acute alveolar osteitis.

AIMS: A quality improvement project was conducted in a General Dental Practice environment. The aim was to reduce the rate of Acute Alveolar Osteitis, which was locally found to be at 19.4%. METHODS: A range of quality improvement tools were utilised to determine and measure potential interventions, and the results from the initial Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle utilising perioperative 0.2% Chlorhexidine as a preventative method are presented. RESULTS: The use of perioperative 0.2% Chlorhexidine mouthwash showed an absolute risk reduction of 6.2%. DISCUSSION: Generalisation from the results is highly dependent on local factors, although the favourable reduction in acute alveolar osteitis and cost savings found supported the project. CONCLUSIONS: This project highlights the strengths of Quality Improvement methodologies in implementing and assessing changes to improve service provision and patient outcomes.