J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Willmot, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Heesterman, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Willmot, D. R.
Right arrow Articles by Heesterman, R. A.

British Journal of Orthodontics, Vol 22, 53-57, Copyright © 1995 by British Orthodontic Society


ARTICLES

The Consultant Orthodontists Group survey of hospital waiting lists and treated cases

DR Willmot, D Dibiase, DJ Birnie and RA Heesterman
Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield.

A questionnaire sent to all U.K. hospital orthodontic consultants resulted in an 88 per cent response rate. The average waiting time for initial consultation was 31.6 weeks for routine cases and 3.6 weeks for urgent cases. The average waiting time for out patient treatment was 68.7 weeks for routine cases and 7.5 weeks for urgent cases. Nearly 33 per cent of hospitals used the Dental Health Component of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment need (IOTN) as a guide to placing patients on waiting lists. 'Urgency' and 'Complexity' were used more frequently than indices. Sixty-nine per cent of hospitals exclude some categories of malocclusion from treatment in their departments. A prospective survey reported on 2480 completed treatments over a six week period and there was an average discontinuation rate of 9.2 per cent of all cases finished during the period. Comparison of the completed and discontinued groups revealed few significant treatment-related factors. There was some evidence that the more senior and experienced the operator, the less the rate of discontinuation. A greater rate of discontinuation was seen in removable appliance cases when compared with fixed appliance cases.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Orthod.Home page
R. E. McMullan
An audit of 'early debond' cases in the national outcomes audit of patients treated with upper and lower fixed appliances by Consultant Orthodontists in the UK
J. Orthod., December 1, 2005; 32(4): 257 - 261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Orthod.Home page
C. D. Stephens and J. Cook
Attitudes of UK consultants to teledentistry as a means of providing orthodontic advice to dental practitioners and their patients
J. Orthod., June 1, 2002; 29(2): 137 - 142.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 British Orthodontic Society.