RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Postgraduate orthodontic education is highly challenging. There is a lack of evidence regarding orthodontic postgraduates' perceptions of their orthodontic education in the United Kingdom. In addition, no study has been conducted to compare the postgraduate orthodontic training experience between UK trainees and international postgraduates. OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate orthodontic UK trainees' and international postgraduates' perception and satisfaction of their orthodontic education. (2) To compare postgraduate orthodontic training experience between UK trainees and international postgraduates. (3) To compare orthodontic caseload between UK trainees and international postgraduates. METHODS: Utilizing a descriptive, cross-sectional survey, conducted through a web-based self-administered questionnaire, the sample population consisted of all 189 orthodontic postgraduates in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five questionnaires were completed resulting in a response rate of 66.1%. All three academic years were evenly represented. Ninety five (76%) respondents rated the quality of their postgraduate orthodontic education as excellent. Over 90% of third year postgraduates felt the quality of their education was excellent. The majority of orthodontic trainees (n = 98, 78.4%) were satisfied with the number of cases. Apart from the first year postgraduates, other postgraduates regardless of UK trainee or international postgraduate status reported a high number of cases in treatment, with 45 (36%) respondents treating more patients than the recommended range of 80-120. Postgraduates' responses were less positive regarding their ability to influence the delivery of their programme, whether their programme represented value for money and the fairness of their training. Most of the respondents believed that UK trainees had an advantage in communicating with patients. CONCLUSION: The majority of orthodontic postgraduates rated the quality of their postgraduate education as excellent. Apart from first year postgraduates, other postgraduates irrespective of UK trainee or international postgraduate status reported a high number of cases in treatment. There was no difference in caseload between UK trainee and international postgraduate groups.
Asunto(s)
Ortodoncia/educación , Estudiantes de Odontología , Actitud , Estudios Transversales , Humanos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of nickel titanium (NiTi) versus stainless steel (SS) springs during orthodontic space closure. DESIGN: Two-centre parallel group randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Orthodontic Department University of Manchester Dental Hospital and Orthodontic Department Countess of Chester Hospital, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty orthodontic patients requiring fixed appliance treatment were enrolled, each being randomly allocated into either NiTi (n = 19) or SS groups (n = 21). Study models were constructed at the start of the space closure phase (T0) and following the completion of space closure (T1). The rate of space closure achieved for each patient was calculated by taking an average measurement from the tip of the canine to the mesiobuccal groove on the first permanent molar of each quadrant. RESULTS: The study was terminated early due to time constraints. Only 30 patients completed, 15 in each study group. There was no statistically significant difference between the amounts of space closed (mean difference 0.17â mm (95%CI -0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.76)). The mean rate of space closure for NiTi coil springs was 0.58â mm/4 weeks (SD 0.24) and 0.85â mm/4 weeks (SD 0.36) for the stainless steel springs. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.024), in favour of the stainless steel springs, when the mean values per patient were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that stainless steel springs are clinically effective; these springs produce as much space closure as their more expensive rivals, the NiTi springs.