MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412493017 · doi:10.1177/23800844251355270

The Medical Necessity of Orthodontic Care: A Qualitative Study

2025· article· en· W4412493017 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Richmond, Habib Benzian, John Daskalogiannakis, Alexander Holden, Carlos Quiñonez

Bibliographic record

VenueJDR Clinical & Translational Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Health and Care Utilization
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchMedical carePsychologyMedicineDentistrySociologyNursingSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: As global momentum builds for universal health coverage (UHC), it is unclear whether orthodontic care should be included in UHC packages. The concept of medically necessary orthodontic care (MNOC) and its criteria thus have far-reaching implications for priority setting and resource allocation in public and private oral health care programs. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that contribute to the determination of MNOC based on perspectives from leaders of dental professional organizations, academics, clinicians, funders, patient advocates, and patients from 7 countries: Canada, United States, Germany, Greece, United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Australia. METHODS: A qualitative description design was used with semi-structured virtual interviews conducted via Zoom from November 2021 to August 2022. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Sixteen interviews were conducted. Participants described their concept of MNOC through 4 interrelated categories: (1) dental factors including dental health, the goals of treatment, and methods of needs assessment; (2) medical factors including the meaning of medical necessity, systemic health considerations, and treatment of craniofacial anomalies; (3) psychosocial factors including societal standards of beauty, social functioning, and mental health; and (4) funding factors including resource allocation considerations and the goals of funding. CONCLUSION: The diversity of factors identified highlights the complex interplay between the dental profession, funders of care, society, and individual patients in understanding MNOC. Given this complexity, MNOC is arguably not amenable to a concise definition or list of criteria. Instead, a decision-making process that incorporates key actor perspectives can enhance transparency, fairness, and accountability in priority setting and resource allocation as related to MNOC and medically necessary oral health care more broadly. This approach would ensure coverage for those with demonstrated need in the context of health, well-being, and quality of life.Knowledge Transfer Statement:This study provides critical insights into the dental, medical, psychosocial, and funding factors that influence the meaning of medically necessary orthodontic care (MNOC) from the perspectives of key actors in 7 high-income countries. The findings reveal that MNOC cannot be defined by a simple set of criteria. Instead, determinations of MNOC should be made through a decision-making process that incorporates a wide array of viewpoints. This approach ensures transparent and fair resource allocation, improving access to essential orthodontic services, thereby enhancing patient health and well-being.

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

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.238
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.413 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJDR Clinical & Translational ResearchSame topicDental Health and Care UtilizationFrench-language works237,207