Establishing a clinical psychology team within the orthognathic service: A triad model of orthodontic, maxillofacial and psychological care

Characteristics of orthognathic multidisciplinary team clinics in England. Part 2: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore the orthodontist's perspective of the strengths and weaknesses of their current multidisciplinary team (MDT) design for orthognathic treatment.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

This was a qualitative study using online interviews of orthodontic consultants across England. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. This was the second part of a two-part study, where the first part, an online questionnaire survey, identified the variation in design of orthognathic MDTs across England and was the source of the 19 participants for this study.

RESULTS

Seven themes were identified that influenced the design of orthognathic MDTs across England. Close working relationship with the team, access to closed surgery space to conduct the MDT and access to 3D planning were identified as definite strengths of some MDT clinics. Lack of a team psychologist and long waiting lists were identified as weaknesses of some orthognathic MDTs. Teaching and training within MDT clinics were highlighted as a strength of MDTs where surgery spaces were not restricted due to the pandemic. Finally, there was general agreement about revising the orthognathic minimum dataset for records collection as it was not thought to be in the patient's best interest.

CONCLUSION

This study was able to identify key areas considered to be determinants of a successful orthognathic MDT design from the orthodontic consultant's perspective. Orthodontic consultants across England prioritised the need for a psychologist in the orthognathic MDT to improve the effectiveness of these clinics.

Do Specific Craniomaxillofacial Features Correlate with Psychological Distress in Adult Pretreatment Orthodontic Patients? A Cephalometric Study

Purpose

To explore the relationship between craniomaxillofacial features and psychological distress among adult pretreatment orthodontic patients.

Methods

A group of 190 patients (95 males and 95 females) was included. Questionnaires including the Kessler psychological distress scale (K10) were sent to patients, and cephalograms were collected. Patients were divided into two groups according to K10 score: psychological distress group (score ≥ 20) and no psychological distress group (score < 20). Nineteen hard tissue and thirteen soft tissue parameters were traced on cephalograms to characterize the craniomaxillofacial features.

Results

There was no significant difference in gender or age distribution between the two groups. Male patients with psychological distress showed statistically significantly larger anterior facial height (AFH) (126.62 mm vs. 120.97 mm), upper lip length (25.11 mm vs. 23.26 mm), and smaller overbite (1.21 mm vs. 2.75 mm) than patients without psychological distress. Male patients with hyperdivergent pattern and open bite were more likely to have psychological distress. None of the parameters showed statistical differences across groups in females. Frankfort-mandibular plane angle (r = 0.235), Bjork's sum (r = 0.311), AFH (r = 0.322), overbite (r = −0.238), AFH/posterior facial height (r = 0.251), and upper anterior facial height (UAFH)/lower anterior facial height (LAFH) (r = −0.230) were correlated with K10 score in males. After adjusting gender and age, the AFH (B = 0.147) and UAFH/LAFH (B = −14.923) were significantly related with the K10 score.

Conclusion

Psychological distress was mainly correlated with hyperdivergent pattern, open bite, and larger lower anterior facial height proportion in pretreatment orthodontic patients. Orthodontists should be aware of the possible underlying psychological distress in patients with specific craniomaxillofacial features. Clinical assessment of psychological distress may need to take into account gender differences in patients.