These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Orthodontic care in Sweden. Outcome in three counties.
    Author: Bergström K.
    Journal: Swed Dent J Suppl; 1996; 117():1-68. PubMed ID: 8971995.
    Abstract:
    The purpose of this series of studies was to evaluate the outcome of orthodontic care in Sweden from the professional's and the patient's perspective. In addition, a model was devised for the priority-planning of orthodontic care and for evaluating the different factors influencing the decision for orthodontic treatment. The results may be summarized as follows: Treatment Decision. Treatment desire, followed by treatment need and treatment benefit were the most important factors to consider when deciding whether or not treatment should be carried out. Regardless of the differences in resources and the structure of the free public care, a substantial proportion of the untreated 19-year-olds had malocclusions with treatment need, but they had no desire for treatment. Most of the 27-year-old individuals were satisfied with their earlier treatment decision, regardless of whether they had undergone orthodontic treatment. Dental professionals were considered to have had the greatest influence on this decision, which means that desire for treatment may be guided by the orthodontist. Individuals with malocclusions and treatment need--but who had refused proposed orthodontic treatment--were in general more discontented with their dental arrangement than other respondents, and a majority of them regretted their decision. Greater information to these individuals would have been desirable. Resources and Treatments Provided by General Practitioners or by Specialists. The sparsity of specialist resources resulted in either a greater restriction on the number necessary treatments being initiated or a greater proportion of the treatment being provided by general practitioners. In the 3 counties analysed, the treatment standard correlated well with the available resources: the greater the number of orthodontic specialists and ability to supervise the work of general practitioners and taking care of patients in need of specialist treatment, the higher the standard of treatment. Individuals treated by specialists were more contented than individuals treated by general practitioners. The measures of treatment outcome in general yielded more favourable scores for specialist treatments than for treatments provided by general practitioners, despite the specialist treatments on the average being classified as more difficult than those provided by general practitioners. Perceived treatment difficulty. About one-fourth of all treatments were classified as easy, one-fourth as moderately difficult, and one-half as difficult. The perceived treatment difficulty was associated on a group basis with the pretreatment need. The treatment investment increased and the treatment outcome became less favourable with increasing perceived difficulty. The treatment outcome was least favourable in the group where no treatment was suggested. Almost every fourth treatment was successfully carried out by mere extraction therapy. Attitudes in 27-year-olds. Orthodontic treatment was considered important by three out of four individuals, even in cases where irregularities of the teeth were small. A majority of the individuals thought that they would have been able to wear visible braces if needed, even in adult age. Methodological aspects. Studies that have used different indices to evaluate treatment outcome can only be compared with great caution. Measures with wide bases for evaluation may be more valid than measures with narrow bases. To estimate treatment outcome in terms of decrease of treatment need, the Indication Index may be recommended.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]