Evaluation of the orthodontic component of the hypodontia care pathway

The Sheldon Friel Memorial Lecture 2020 It's not just about the teeth: Patient-centred Orthodontics

The provision of high-quality health care involves many different aspects, including safety, effectiveness, efficiency, and patient centredness. In order for care to be truly patient centred requires patients' views being sought and considered, and this may be achieved through patient-centred research. Patient-centred research is fundamentally important in contemporary health care and has many benefits; for example, it ensures that research is relevant, identifies those aspects of care that are important to patients, provides information that is important to current and future patients, and allows the integration of patients' views regarding how services may be enhanced in the future. This paper provides an overview of how we currently involve patients in orthodontic research, what this means to the specialty and how we can enhance patient involvement in the future.

Patients' Acceptability of Computer-Based Information on Hypodontia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare patients' acceptability of a hypodontia-specific interactive computer-based education material (ICB-EM) versus a British Orthodontic Society (BOS) hypodontia leaflet.

TRIAL DESIGN

Two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial, 1:1 allocation ratio.

METHODS

The study was conducted at a specialized secondary care facility in the Greater London area. Ninety-six new hypodontia patients aged 14 y and older were randomly assigned to the control group ( n = 49) receiving the BOS leaflet or the intervention group ( n = 47) receiving the ICB-EM. The main outcome measure was patients' evaluation of the intervention measured by the treatment evaluation inventory.

RESULTS

The analyzed sample comprised 76 participants: control group ( n = 38) and intervention group ( n = 38). The mean age of the sample was 19 y (SD = 7.24) and 20.3 y (SD = 6.9) for the control and intervention group, respectively. The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with the ICB-EM than individuals who received the BOS leaflet ( t = -3.53, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients preferred the computer-based information.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

Patients attending dental care in the 21st century are adept in the use of computerised facilities for obtaining information. The results of the study will provide valuable evidence for clinicians on the level of acceptability of the patients toward interactive computer based health education as opposed to traditional paper leaflets.

Evidence in Orthodontics related to qualitative research

Introduction:

Research in Orthodontics has historically followed the positivist model based on the direct relationship of cause and effect between diseases and their specific etiological factors. Despite the objectivity and the great potential of statistical procedures, quantitative methods have progressively been sharing space with other models that can encompass the multiplicity of factors that affect the health-disease process, which until such time was reduced to its biological dimension.

Objectives:

This study aims, through an integrative review, to identify orthodontics articles published over a 10-year period that have used, exclusively or not, some method of qualitative research, and analyze the main aspects of their content.

Methods:

A survey was performed on Pubmed, Medline, Scopus, and Lilacs databases from 2007 to 2016 with a focus on the applicability of the qualitative methodology in orthodontic research.

Results:

The 27 articles selected showed a trend to increase in publications, with the most recent four years concentrating almost 60% of them. Most studies were from Europe, particularly the UK, and the more frequent study objectives were related to the perception of people about the reasons for orthodontic treatment, about the aesthetic and psychosocial impact of malocclusion or orthodontic treatment, and the implications of these factors for their quality of life.

Conclusions:

Because of its potential to explore behaviours and socio-cultural attitudes sustained in subjectivity, qualitative research offers new possibilities for orthodontic studies and can be used in an exclusive or complementary way in relation to quantitative methods.

Identification and appraisal of outcome measures used to evaluate hypodontia care: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Identification and appraisal of the outcome measures that have been used to evaluate hypodontia treatment and deliver services are essential for improving care. A lack of alignment between outcomes and patient values can limit the scope for patient-centered care. Our objectives were to identify and appraise the outcomes selected to evaluate hypodontia care.

METHODS

Data sources included 10 electronic databases and grey literature, searched using terms for hypodontia and its treatment methods. Study eligibility included mixed study designs to ensure comprehensive identification of outcomes, excluding case reports and case series with fewer than 10 participants and nonsystematic reviews. Participants and interventions involved people with hypodontia receiving any dental treatment to manage their hypodontia. Simulated treatment, purely laboratory-based interventions, and future treatments still in development were excluded. Research outcomes were identified and synthesised into 4 categories: clinical indicators, and patient-reported, clinician-reported, and lay-reported outcomes. No synthesis of efficacy data was planned, and consequently no methodologic quality appraisal of the studies was undertaken.

RESULTS

The search identified 497 abstracts, from which 106 eligible articles were retrieved in full. Fifty-six studies and 8 quality-improvement reports were included. Clinical indicators were reported in 49 studies (88%) including appearance, function, dental health, treatment longevity, treatment success and service delivery. Patient-reported outcomes were given in 22 studies (39%) including oral health-related quality of life, appearance, function, symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction, and patient experience. Clinician-reported outcomes were limited to appearance. Variability was seen in the tools used for measuring outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of rationale and consistency in the selection of outcome measures used to evaluate hypodontia care. Outcomes are largely clinician and researcher-driven with little evidence of their relevance to patients. There was a paucity of outcomes measuring access to care, quality of care, and cost. Evidence from hypodontia research is clinician-focused and likely to have limited value to support patients during decision making. Attempts to synthesise the evidence base for translation into practice will be challenging. There is a need for a core outcomes set with a patient-centric approach to drive improvements in health services.