The Assessment of Knowledge, Behaviors, and Anxiety Levels of the Orthodontists about COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective:A new viral disease called Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) affected the whole world because of its characteristics of spreading rapidly via respiratory droplets and aerosol. As one of the most aerosol-generating occupations, dentists are at high risk and are recommended to treat emergency cases only. We aimed to assess the general knowledge, emergencies, personal precautions, and avoided behaviors among the orthodontists and also their anxiety levels, during COVID-19.Methods:A survey research, including demographic information, general knowledge about COVID-19, treatment strategies, protective measures, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) 7 test, was conducted via a web-based questionnaire (1 open-ended and 26 closed-ended questions). A total of 215 orthodontists older than 20 years of age and practicing in different regions of Turkey were included in this study. The answers received within the first 10 days were included.Results:Most of the orthodontists were aware of COVID-19 symptoms and transmission routes (n=159 and n=183, respectively). Almost all of them treated only emergency cases (n=209). Orthodontic emergencies were reported mostly as injury due to band/bracket failure, soft/hard tissue trauma, and problems in retention appliances (n=197, n=186, and n=81, respectively). The participants also avoided aerosol-generating procedures and used transmission-based protective equipment. The prevalence of GAD was 16.7% during COVID-19, and there was no statistically significant difference when it was stratified by gender, age, city, and COVID-19 related questions (p>0.05).Conclusion:The orthodontists followed the guidelines and took protective measures during COVID-19, and the majority had subthreshold anxiety levels

Assessment of the Diagnostic Skills of General Dentists in Different Types of Orthodontic Malocclusions

Objective: One of the biggest problems in publicly funded dental clinics is the patient waiting list. The appropriate referral plays a key role in avoiding an increase in the number of patients on this waiting list. This study aimed to assess general dentists’ diagnostic skills and approaches for different malocclusions.Methods: A questionnaire was prepared using photos of 8 patients previously treated for different malocclusions. One hundred twenty general dentists (83 female, mean age: 24 ± 1.18 years; 37 male, mean age: 24 ± 1.95 years) participated in the survey and were asked to decide whether the patient needed orthodontic treatment or orthognathic surgery, and to provide the reason for surgery (irregular teeth, or both unesthetic profile and irregular teeth), and the cause of the unesthetic profile (mandibular protrusion, mandibular retrusion, maxillary protrusion, maxillary retrusion).Results: The answers suggesting the need for orthodontic treatment were significantly higher for all malocclusions except for the Class II camouflage case. Of the Class III cases, the general dentists chose orthognathic surgery for both surgery and facemask cases (93.1%, 66.4% respectively). For the severe open bite case, orthognathic surgery was chosen with a ratio of 81.2%, and orthognathic surgery was decided as not necessary for the mild open bite case (74.8%). Among the surgery cases, mandibular retrusion for the Class II case (94.6%), mandibular protrusion for Class III case (95.4%), and maxillary retrusion for the severe open bite case (44.6%) were the maximum reported reasons.Conclusion: The distinction between camouflage and surgical treatment was better made by dentists in Class II and open bite cases than in Class III cases

Comparison of the effects of rapid maxillary expansion and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction protocols followed by facemask therapy

Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate and compare the changes in the pharyngeal airway (PA), maxillary sinus volume, and skeletal parameters after rapid maxillary expansion (RME) and alternate rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC) followed by facemask (FM) therapy. Methods: The records of 40 patients with skeletal Class lll malocclusion due to maxillary retrognathism were collected, and the patients were assigned into two groups. The first group comprised 8 male and 12 female patients (mean age, 10.0 +/- 1.1 years) treated using RME/FM for an average of 10 months. The second group comprised 10 male and 10 female patients (mean age, 9.64 +/- 1.3 years) treated using Alt-RAMEC/FM for an average of 12 months. Cone-beam computed tomography images acquired before (TO) and after treatment (T1) were evaluated. Results: Regarding the skeletal effects, significant differences between the groups were the increase in ANS-HRP (perpendicular distance of ANS to the horizontal reference plane, 0.99 mm, p <0.05) in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group and the decrease in PP-SN (palatal plane to Sella-Nasion plane, 0.93 degrees, p < 0.05) in the RME/FM group. Maxillary sinus volumes increased significantly in both the groups, and the increase was statistically significantly higher in the AltRAMEC/FM group. Although no significant intergroup differences were observed in PA volumes, both lower (1,011.19 mm(3)) and total (1,601.21 mm(3)), PA volume increased significantly in the Alt-RAMEC/FM group. Conclusions: The different expansion devices and protocols used with FM therapy do not seem to affect the forward movement of the maxilla and PA volumes. In contrast, the increase in maxillary sinus volume was greater in the Alt-RAMEC/FM protocol