ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
|
Title |
Orthodontic Appointment Intervals |
Clinical Question |
Are 4-Week Appointment Intervals More Effective In Orthodontic Treatment Than Longer Intervals? |
Clinical Bottom Line |
According to this case series, 6-week appointment intervals can be equally effective as 4-week appointment intervals and do not appear to lengthen overall treatment time significantly. (See Comments on the CAT below) |
Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
#1) 3189247 | Alger/1988 | 92 orthodontic patients in Saudi Arabia with full upper and lower appliances | Case Series | Key results | Patients in this study were on a 6-week recall schedule. The average treatment time for the 92 patients was 22 months. Patients requiring surgery showed the longest treatment time (30 months average), while Class I and Class II patients who did not require extraction’s showed the shortest treatment time (19.5 months average). | |
Evidence Search |
PubMed Search: "Orthodontics"[Mesh] OR "Orthodontics, Preventive"[Mesh] OR "Orthodontics, Interceptive"[Mesh] OR "Orthodontics, Corrective"[Mesh])) AND "Appointments and Schedules"[Mesh] AND "Time Factors"[Mesh] |
Comments on
The Evidence |
This is very old and very weak evidence. Not having a comparison between patients on different appointment schedules makes it impossible to quantify effects of longer vs. shorter appointment intervals. However, this was the most pertinent article on this specific topic. |
Applicability |
This applies to orthodontic patients with full appliances on both arches, and specifically to orthodontists establishing their normal recall interval for patients. |
Specialty/Discipline |
(Orthodontics) |
Keywords |
orthodontics; appointment interval; orthodontic adjustments; treatment time; schedule
|
ID# |
464 |
Date of submission: |
12/22/2009 |
E-mail |
FrancisJ@uthscsa.edu |
Author |
J. Christian Francis |
Co-author(s) |
|
Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
Faculty mentor/Co-author |
|
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
|
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Hieu Nguyen (San Antonio, TX) on 04/12/2012 A PubMed search was conducted on April 2012. The evidence relevant to this clinical question was weak and old. The highest evidence found in this search was PMID: 3189247, which is the same one the original author of this clinical question listed. | |
|
|