Survey Of Canadian Orthodontists Regarding Orthodontic Miniscrew Usage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To obtain information on the clinical utilization of orthodontic miniscrews (OMSs) among orthodontists in Canada\nMethods: Web-based software was used to fabricate a questionnaire in which respondents were asked questions regarding their usage of OMSs in their clinical practice. The survey consisted of between 11 and 39 questions, depending on the respondents’ answers. The survey was distributed via email to the 353 active Canadian members of the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO).\nResults: A total of 82 Canadian orthodontists responded to the survey, for a response rate of 23.2%. Among them, 65.8% currently used miniscrews in their clinical practice. The most common reason given for not using OMSs was a doctor preference for conventional less invasive mechanics. At the time of the survey, most Canadian orthodontists who were currently using OMSs had been doing so for 6-10 years. Most respondents were placing OMSs personally with the primary reason for referral being the longer chair time required for placement. The most commonly used placement locations were the maxillary and mandibular alveolar buccal areas. The most common applications were posterior intrusion and molar protraction. Most respondents used a panoramic radiograph to plan OMS placement and used local infiltration for anesthesia. The majority of orthodontists never used a surgical guide, drilled a pilot hole, or measured insertion torque during OMS placement. Both direct and indirect forces were frequently applied to OMSs, and the load was usually applied immediately. The most frequently observed complications were screw loosening and soft tissue overgrowth or irritation. The mean self-reported OMS failure rate was 19.6% ± 15.7%, with failures most frequently reported in the maxillary alveolar buccal areas. Most respondents felt that OMSs have increased treatment options, reduced patient compliance required, and decreased the number of cases requiring prosthodontic treatment. A majority of Canadian orthodontists are satisfied with their OMS treatment outcomes with most agreeing that OMSs have made treatment more predictable and better overall.\nConclusions: This survey illustrates that while Canadian orthodontists in 2020 have similar opinions in regard to OMS usage with orthodontists surveyed in the past and in other countries, a few differences do exist.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".