Protetik Rehberli Tedavi Planlamasında Preprotetik Ortodontik Müdahaleler: Ortodonti Uzmanları Arasında Yürütülen Kesitsel Bir Anket Çalışması

Öz

Amaç Preprotetik ortodontik tedavi, genç erişkinlerde oral rehabilitasyonun önemli bir bileşeni olup disiplinler arası tedavi planlaması gerektirir. Bu çalışmada, ortodonti uzmanlık öğrencileri ile uzmanlar tarafından bildirilen pre-protetik ortodontik girişimlerin (POG) sıklığı ve kapsamı karşılaştırıldı. Gereç ve Yöntemler Kesitsel anket çalışmasına 42 uzmanlık öğrencisi ve 33 ortodonti uzmanı olmak üzere toplam 75 katılımcı dahil edildi. Katılımcıların demografik özellikleri ve yaygın POG’u uygulama durumları değerlendirildi. Klinik uygulama kapsamını yansıtan global girişim skoru hesaplandı. Gruplar ki-kare ve Mann-Whitney U testleri ile karşılaştırıldı (P < 0.05). Bulgular Uzmanlar; maksiller lateral kesici agenezisinde boşluk yönetimi, devrilmiş dişlerin dikleştirilmesi, oklüzal eğrinin düzeltilmesi, vertikal boyut düzenlenmesi, derin kapanış tedavisi ve ortodontik kron boyu uzatma gibi kompleks girişimleri anlamlı olarak daha sık bildirdi. Global girişim skoru uzmanlarda, uzmanlık öğrencilerine göre daha yüksekti [medyan (ÇAA): 7.00 (5.00-10.00) ve 4.00 (2.00-8.00); p = 0.001]. Katılımcıların çoğu, bu girişimlerin aylık vaka yüklerinde sınırlı yer tuttuğunu belirtti. Sonuç Ortodonti uzmanları, uzmanlık öğrencilerine kıyasla daha geniş ve daha kompleks POG bildirmiştir. Klinik deneyim ve disiplinler arası vaka katılımı uygulama kapsamını etkileyebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ortodonti
• protetik diş tedavisi
• genç erişkin
• disiplinler arası tedavi
• tedavi planlaması

Pre-Prosthetic Orthodontic Interventions in Prosthetically Guided Treatment Planning: A Cross-Sectional Survey among Orthodontic Practitioners

Öz

Objectives Pre-prosthetic orthodontic treatment is an important part of oral rehabilitation in young adults and requires interdisciplinary planning. This study evaluated the frequency and scope of pre-prosthetic orthodontic interventions (POIs) reported by orthodontic residents and specialists and compared practice patterns between these groups. Material and Methods A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among 75 orthodontists (42 residents and 33 specialists). Participants reported demographic characteristics and the performance of common POIs. A global intervention score representing the breadth of practice was calculated. Group comparisons were performed using chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests (P < 0.05). Results Specialists reported significantly higher frequencies of complex interventions, including space management for maxillary lateral incisor agenesis, uprighting tilted teeth, occlusal curve correction, vertical dimension adjustment, deep bite correction, and orthodontic crown lengthening. The global intervention score was significantly higher among specialists than residents [median (IQR): 7.00 (5.00-10.00) vs 4.00 (2.00-8.00); p = 0.001], indicating a broader scope of practice. Most respondents stated that POIs constituted a small proportion of their monthly caseload. Conclusion Orthodontic specialists reported a broader and more complex range of POIs than residents. Clinical experience and interdisciplinary involvement may influence the scope of pre-prosthetic orthodontic practice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• orthodontics
• prosthodontics
• young adult
• interdisciplinary treatment;
• treatment planning

Destekleyen Kurum

None

Etik Beyan

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș (approval number: 3875/20.10.2025). Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and completion of the questionnaire was considered as implied informed consent.

Teşekkür

We acknowledge the support of the participating orthodontists and resident doctors for their time and collaboration during the survey.

Kaynakça

1. Schneider UEM, Moser L. Achieving excellence with interdisciplinary approaches in complex orthodontic adult patients. Br Dent J. 2024; 237: 349-59, doi: 10.1038/s41415-024-7778-9
2. Alfallaj H. Pre-prosthetic orthodontics. Saudi Dent J. 2020; 32: 7-14, doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.08.004
3. Zadrożny Ł, Górski B, Baldoni E, et al. Minimally invasive treatment of lateral incisors with guided one-piece or two-piece titanium-made narrow diameter implants: a retrospective comparative study with up to two years follow-up. J Clin Med. 2023; 12: 3711. doi:10.3390/jcm12113711
4. Bitonto F, Verdecchia A, Lombardo M, et al. Treatment options for unilateral agenesis of the maxillary lateral incisor combined with contralateral microdontic or peg-shaped lateral incisor: a systematic review. Dent J (Basel). 2025; 13: 169. doi:10.3390/dj13040169
5. Altieri F, Guarnieri R, Mezio M, et al. Uprighting impacted mandibular second molar using a skeletal anchorage: a case report. Dent J (Basel). 2020; 8: 129. doi: 10.3390/dj8040129
6. Sbricoli L, Ricci S, Cattozzo A, et al. Mandibular molar uprighting using skeletal anchorage: a novel approach. J Clin Med. 2022; 11: 3565. doi: 10.3390/jcm11133565
7. Arturo I, Luzi C. Prosthetically Guided Orthodontic Strategies. In Adult Orthodontics, Wiley, 2022, pp. 323-47.
8. Bocchino T, Martina S, Sangiuolo C, et al. Maxillary impacted canine and upper lateral incisor agenesis treatment with “canine first technique” and clear aligners: a case report. Healthcare. 2023; 11: 2345. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11162345

9. Watted N, Lone IM, Zohud O, et al. Comprehensive deciphering the complexity of the deep bite: insight from animal model to human subjects. J Pers Med. 2023; 13: 1472. doi: 10.3390/jpm13101472
10. Arcas VC, Tig IA, Moga DFC, et al. Correlation between depth of the curve of spee and some specific malocclusion characteristics in a population from Sibiu County, Romania - a cross-sectional study. J Clin Med. 2024; 13: 2750. doi: 10.3390/jcm13102750
11. Venezia P, Ronsivalle V, Isola G, et al. Prosthetically guided orthodontics (PGO): a personalized clinical approach for aesthetic solutions using digital technology. J Pers Med. 2022; 12: 1716. doi: 10.3390/JPM12101716
12. Raghavan S, Abu Alhaija E, Ali K. Orthodontic curricula in undergraduate dental education - a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023; 20: 4914. doi: 10.3390/IJERPH20064914
13. Mangano F, Shibli JA, Fortin T. Digital dentistry: new materials and techniques. Int J Dent. 2016: 2016: 5261247. doi: 10.1155/2016/5261247
14. Schwendicke F, Samek W, Krois J. Artificial intelligence in dentistry: chances and challenges. J Dent Res. 2020; 99: 769-74. doi: 10.1177/0022034520915714
15. Fiorillo L, Meto A, Cicciù M. Bioengineering applied to oral implantology, a new protocol: “Digital Guided Surgery.” Prosthesis. 2023; 5: 234-50. doi: 10.3390/prosthesis5010018
16. Angulo-Manzaneque G, Baus-Domínguez M, Ruiz-de-León-Hernández G, et al. Evaluation of a new technique of gingival smile reduction after hyaluronic acid infiltration: a cohort study focusing on gingival exposure and patient-oriented outcomes. Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12: 329. doi: 10.3390/dj12100329
17. De Stefani A, Bruno G, Montanari V, et al. Managing the leeway space in mixed dentition using a passive lingual arch: a systematic review. Dent J (Basel). 2025; 13: 135. doi: 10.3390/dj13030135
18. Schnitzler C, Bohnet-Joschko S. Technology readiness drives digital adoption in dentistry: insights from a cross-sectional study. Healthcare. 2025; 13: 1155. doi: 10.3390/HEALTHCARE13101155
19. Yoon A, Flores-Mir C. Orthodontics & overall health: a unified approach to patient care. Semin Orthod. 2025; 31: 445-7. doi: 10.1053/J.SODO.2025.07.004
20. Karkazi F, Antoniadou M, Demeterová K, et al. Orthodontic risk perspectives among orthodontists during treatment: a descriptive pilot study in Greece and Slovakia. Healthcare. 2024; 12: 492. doi: 10.3390/HEALTHCARE12040492
21. Loomans B, Maertens J. Effective interdisciplinary collaboration in complex dental cases. Aesthetic Update. 2025; 2: 22-6. doi: 10.12968/AEDU.2025.2.1.22
22. Lee KJ, Jeon HH, Boucher N, et al. Transverse analysis of maxilla and mandible in adults with normal occlusion: a cone beam computed tomography study. J Imaging. 2022; 8: 100. doi: 10.3390/jimaging8040100
23. Perrotti G, Baccaglione G, Clauser T, et al. Total face approach (TFA) 3D cephalometry and superimposition in orthognathic surgery: evaluation of the vertical dimensions in a consecutive series. Methods Protoc. 2021; 4: 36. doi: 10.3390/mps4020036
24. Sorrentino R, Zarone F, Cantile T, et al. The use of digital tools in an interdisciplinary approach to comprehensive prosthodontic treatments. Prosthesis. 2024; 6: 863-70. doi: 10.3390/PROSTHESIS6040062
25. Melsen Birte, Allais Delfino, Fiorelli G. Appliance Design. In Adult Orthodontics; Wiley, 2022, pp. 101-40.
26. Hedmo C, Lindsten R, Josefsson E. Laypeople and dental professionals’ perception of the aesthetic outcome of two treatments for missing lateral incisors. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2022; 8: 262-9. doi: 10.1002/cre2.504
27. López-Trujillo LV, López-Valencia SC, Agudelo-Suárez AA. understanding the quality of life and its related factors in orthodontics postgraduate students: a mixed methods approach. Dent J (Basel). 2023; 11: 39. doi: 10.3390/DJ11020039/S1
28. Houb-dine A, Regragui A, Benkaddour A, et al. Pre-prosthetic orthodontic implant for an aesthetic rehabilitation: a case report. Integrative J Med Sci. 2020; 8: 276. doi: 10.15342/IJMS.2021.276
29. Wang J, Huang Y, Chen F, et al. The age-related effects on orthodontic tooth movement and the surrounding periodontal environment. Front Physiol. 2024; 15: 1460168. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2024.1460168
30. Spagnuolo G. Cone-beam computed tomography and the related scientific evidence. Applied Sci. 2022; 12: 7140. doi: 10.3390/app12147140
31. Ma Y, Zhao W, Zhang S, et al. Treatment decisions of patients with Class II Division 2 malocclusion and severe tooth wear: a systematic review. BDJ Open. 2024; 10: 65. doi: 10.1038/s41405-024-00248-x