Survey Of Canadian Orthodontists Regarding Orthodontic Miniscrew Usage

Purpose: To obtain information on the clinical utilization of orthodontic miniscrews (OMSs) among orthodontists in Canada Methods: Web-based software was used to fabricate a questionnaire in which respondents were asked questions regarding their usage of OMSs in their clinical practice. The survey consisted of between 11 and 39 questions, depending on the respondents’ answers. The survey was distributed via email to the 353 active Canadian members of the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO). Results: A total of 82 Canadian orthodontists responded to the survey, for a response rate of 23.2%. Among them, 65.8% currently used miniscrews in their clinical practice. The most common reason given for not using OMSs was a doctor preference for conventional less invasive mechanics. At the time of the survey, most Canadian orthodontists who were currently using OMSs had been doing so for 6-10 years. Most respondents were placing OMSs personally with the primary reason for referral being the longer chair time required for placement. The most commonly used placement locations were the maxillary and mandibular alveolar buccal areas. The most common applications were posterior intrusion and molar protraction. Most respondents used a panoramic radiograph to plan OMS placement and used local infiltration for anesthesia. The majority of orthodontists never used a surgical guide, drilled a pilot hole, or measured insertion torque during OMS placement. Both direct and indirect forces were frequently applied to OMSs, and the load was usually applied immediately. The most frequently observed complications were screw loosening and soft tissue overgrowth or irritation. The mean self-reported OMS failure rate was 19.6% ± 15.7%, with failures most frequently reported in the maxillary alveolar buccal areas. Most respondents felt that OMSs have increased treatment options, reduced patient compliance required, and decreased the number of cases requiring prosthodontic treatment. A majority of Canadian orthodontists are satisfied with their OMS treatment outcomes with most agreeing that OMSs have made treatment more predictable and better overall. Conclusions: This survey illustrates that while Canadian orthodontists in 2020 have similar opinions in regard to OMS usage with orthodontists surveyed in the past and in other countries, a few differences do exist