A Phenomenological Study on Patients' Experiences With Extraction Retraction Orthodontic Regret
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Extraction retraction orthodontic (ERO) practices are commonly used to treat every malocclusion. Occasionally, patients express dissatisfaction over the previous ERO treatment. This study investigates the experience of those who have had ERO intervention and expressed regret or dissatisfaction with this treatment. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who have expressed regret over past ERO treatment. Interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to derive themes from transcripts. Results Eleven participants were recruited, who gave informed consent and participated in the semi-structured interview process. Six major themes were identified through IPA: "ERO Treatment Course", "Lack of Informed Consent", "Ocean of Grief and Trauma" to describe the overall patient emotional experience, "Multifaceted Health Complaints", "Finding Solutions and Coping Strategies", and "Wishing There Was a Better Way". Participants felt like they were not able to give informed consent for ERO due to a number of different reasons such as being too young, not being given accurate information on the risks, or being influenced parentally, culturally, or by the provider. Participants regret ERO due to a number of multifaceted health complaints, including but not limited to sleep breathing disorders, craniofacial pain patterns, neuropsychobehavioural symptoms, and negative aesthetic outcomes that they believe result from ERO. Conclusion Patient regret following extraction retraction orthodontics is due to a lack of informed consent and negative health and aesthetic effects. To prevent this regret, future research and practice direction should focus on improving the informed consent process, promoting optimal dentofacial development and non-extraction-retraction therapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".