PDF(6.5mb) - Malaysian Dental Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Asma / Ruzawani / Siti HajarTable 2 represents the total number of patients in a year from 2002 to 2007. The total number of patientsreferred to both orthodontic waiting lists from the year 2002 to 2007 was 3003. 1064 patients (35%) werereferred for RA treatment while 1939 patients (65%) were referred for FA treatment. RA waiting list had thehighest number of patients in 2006 with 274 patients while FA’s highest number of patients was in 2007 with 831patients. The total number of case load in year 2006 was the highest compared to other years.The heaviest RA case load was detected in the year 2006 whereby 22.8 ± 13.0 patients were referred permonth (Table 3). From the year 2004 to 2007, the number of FA referral were shown to be increasing with thehighest number of patient was 69.3 ± 35.2 per month as observed in the year 2007 (Table 3).Complexity of cases referredMajority of cases referred to the Orthodontic department of UKM were complex with percentage of74.6%. Simpler cases which graded as very simple and simple consist of only 16.7% at the total cases referred.7.2% of cases were very complex while only 1.4% of cases were in moderate category.Waiting list timingIn average, patients had to wait for 6.9 ± 2.5 months to be screened as calculated from the year 2002 to2007. Patients would receive RA treatment after an average of 4.4 ± 1.0 months. The shortest waiting time wasin 2005 with 3.1 ± 5.0 months while the longest waiting time was in 2004 with 5.7 ± 4.9 months of waiting.From the year 2002 to 2007, FA waiting time is 14.5 ± 9.8 months in average. In year 2002, patient had towait the longest time of 32.5 ± 21.9 months while in 2005, the waiting time was the shortest of 4.0 ± 5.3 months.Table 2: Number of patients in each waiting list2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Removable appliance 131 163 138 228 274 130Fixed appliance 0 0 131 278 699 831Total 131 163 269 506 973 961Table 3 : Mean of cases seen per month for Removable appliance (RA) and Fixed appliance (FA)2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007RA 5.5 ± 5.9 4.1 ± 3.2 10.9 ± 7.1 13.6 ± 6.3 11.5 ± 7.2 19.0 ± 12.2 22.8 ± 13.0 10.8 ± 9.6FA 10.9 ± 9.1 24.9 ± 16.5 58.2 ± 28.4 69.3 ± 35.2DISCUSSIONFrom this study, majority of patient who seek fororthodontic treatment are female (76%) as proven byShaw, 1981 where dental dissatisfaction were found tobe more common in female than male. 6 Mean age ofpatients who seek orthodontic treatment in this studywas 21.3±6.06. A study has shown that patients in theirearly adulthood tend to be more concern about theiresthetic compared to children. 1From 2002 until 2008, the number of patients inwaiting list for removable appliance is increased exceptin 2004 and 2007. The number of patient in waitinglist for removable appliance is correlated with numberof fifth year dental students which is increased exceptin 2004 (41 students). In 2007, compare to a yearbefore, the total number of fourth and fifth year dentalstudents was decreased.Treatment for fixed appliance mainly started in2004 concurrent with the orthodontic postgraduateteaching clinic. By 2007, there are 8 postgraduatestudents and five orthodontists in the Dental Facultyof UKM. The caseload for fixed appliance were alsoincreased from the year 2002 unitl 2007 whichreflects the need to have fixed appliance cases by thepostgraduate students. Furthermore, the increment ofnumber of patient refered to fixed appliance list canbe because of the esthetic demands from the patients2 . Hamdan et al 2004 also found that most patientsare wiling to have fixed appliance as modalities oftheir orthodontic treatment compared to removableappliance. 2Most orthodontic cases that being referredto orthodontic department of UKM are complexcases. Studies have shown that patient with severemalocclusion are motivated by themselves to seekorthodontic treatment. 7,8,9 Marked improvement inthe facial and dental appearance from orthodontictreatment in patients with severe malocclusion mayproduce psychological benefit e.g. self-confidencewhich can accompanies those changes. 919 Malaysian Dental Journal Jan-Jun 2011 Vol 32 No 1
An Audit Of The Caseload And Waiting Time For Orthodontic Treatment In A University SettingThe average waiting time to be screened from2002 until 2007 is 6.9±2.5 months. The half a year ofscreening waiting time is because there were limitedscreening teaching clinic as it only involved the fifthyear student. Meanwhile, the waiting time to receiveremovable appliance was shorter (4.4±1.0 months).This is because the removable appliance cases weretaken care by both the fourth and fifth year dentalstudents. Due to the larger number of operators, thusmaking the removable appliance waiting time wasslightly shorter than in screening.For fixed appliance, the average waiting timewas the longest among all waiting list (14.5±9.8months). Fixed appliance can only be done byorthodontic postgraduate students and orthodonticspecialist. The limited number of orthodontic fixedappliance practitioners in UKM contributed to thislong waiting time. Furthermore, the treatment time forfixed appliance is longer thus operators may only takelesser number of patients in a month when comparedto removable treatment.Regarding the sample for this study, some data inbetween the year 2000-2003 were difficult to retrieveddue to some of the patients’ records were missingand the waiting list records were not systematicallyarranged. Further improvement in the records arecurrently being done in order to facilitate furtherauditing.The orthodontic dental services in UKM canbe improved by providing better orthodontic clinicfacilities and increasing number of orthodonticpractitioners. Therefore, UKM orthodontic clinic canaccommodate the expected increasing number ofpatient and accelerates the waiting time prior toreceiving orthodontic treatment.CONCLUSIONFrom the year 2002-2007, most patients (65%)were referred to fixed appliance waiting list while only35% patients were referred for removable appliancewaiting list. The longest waiting time was the fixedappliance of 14.5 ± 9.8 months. The average waitingtime to be screened was 6.9 ± 2.5 months. Meanwhile,the shortest waiting time was the removable appliancelist of 4.4 ± 1.0 months. Most of cases referred werecomplex (75%).2. Hamdan A.M. The relationship between patient,parent and clinician perceived need and normativeorthodontic treatment need. Eur J of Orthod2004;26: 265-2713. Malaysian Association of Orthodontics(http://www.mao.org.my)4. Oral Health Division, Ministry of HealthMalaysia(http://www.moh.gov.my/ohd)5. Russell J.I, Pearson A.I., Bowden D.E.J., WrightJ., O’Brien K.D. The consultant orthodonticservice-1996 service. Br Dent J 1999;187(3): 149-1536. Shaw WC. Factors influencing the desire fororthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod, 1981; 3:151–162.7. Liepa A., Urtane I., Richmond S., Dunstan F.Orthodontic treatment need in Latvia. Eur JOrthod. 2003; 25: 279-2848. Li X, Tang Y, Huang X, Wan H, Chen Y. FactorsInfluencing Subjective Orthodontic TreatmentNeed and Culture-related Differences amongChinese Natives and Foreign Inhabitants Int J OralSci, 2010;2(3): 149–1579. De Oliveira C.M., Sheiham A.. Orthodontictreatment and its impact on oral health-relatedquality of life in Brazilian adolescent. J Orthod.2004;31:20-27Address for correspondence:Dr Asma Alhusna Abang AbdullahJabatan Ortodontik, Fakulti Pergigian, UniversitiKebangsaan Malaysia,Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, 50300 Kuala Lumpur.Office no: 03-92897727HP no.: 0193329852Fax no.: 03-92897856email: asmaabdullah@yahoo.comREFERENCES1. Gherunpong S., Tsakos G., Sheiham A. Asocio-dental approach to assessing children’sorthodontic need. Eur J of Orthod 2006;28: 393-399Malaysian Dental Journal Jan-Jun 2011 Vol 32 No 120
Page 2 and 3: Malaysian Dental Journal Editorial
Page 6: Delivery Time Of Orthodontic Applia
Page 9: Delivery Time Of Orthodontic Applia
Page 12: Loke / Tan30-40 appliances a year w
Page 15 and 16: Fracture Resistance Tests Validatio
Page 17 and 18: Fracture Resistance Tests Validatio
Page 19: An Audit Of The Caseload And Waitin
Page 23 and 24: Prosthodontic Considerations In The
Page 29 and 30: The Loading And Unloading Propertie
Page 34 and 35: ThomasX axis -- forces in Newton. -
Page 43 and 44: Surgical Reconstruction Of The Lost
Page 45 and 46: Surgical Reconstruction Of The Lost
Page 47 and 48: Single Tooth Odontodysplasia- Case
Page 53: Distinguish yourselfGraduate study

PDF(6.5mb) - Malaysian Dental Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?