| Autor: |
Klineberg, Iven, Cameron, Angus, Whittle, Terry, Hobkirk, John, Bergendal, Birgitta, Maniere, Marie-Cecile, King, Nigel, Palmer, Richard, Hobson, Ross, Stanford, Clark, Kurtz, Kenneth, Sharma, Arun, Guckes, Albert |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants; 2013, Vol. 28 Issue 4, p1090-1100, 11p, 3 Diagrams, 3 Charts, 1 Graph |
| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: An international Delphi study was undertaken to determine by consensus an agreed approach to the management of children with dental manifestations of ectodermal dysplasia, including the use of dental implants. This was done using a questionnaire developed by an interdisciplinary team. Materials and Methods: The Delphi study questionnaire was built around 19 areas of clinical relevance and included 90 items. Topic areas included dental disability; initial diagnosis; global disability; oral health aspects of dental treatment (orthodontics, hypodontia, anodontia, implants); and case studies of selected treatment options. Eleven teams from six countries contributed to three iterations of the questionnaire. An algorithm was designed to standardize analysis of the questionnaire answers, all of which were blinded to ensure anonymity. The second and third rounds of the questionnaire excluded previously agreed-upon items but included the responses to the questions from the earlier rounds. The nonconsensus items inquired about the use of radiographs at initial diagnosis; sedation of an uncooperative child; use of a pretreatment questionnaire; the age range for specific treatments (eg, dentures, orthodontics, implants); specific uses of implants (eg, partial prostheses, overdentures, cantilevered prostheses); and case study 2. The residual nonconsensus questions were subsequently discussed at a 2-day meeting. Results: Among the 90 questions and partial questions, there was progressive consensus, with agreements in rounds 1, 2, and 3 of 61%, 21%, and 8%, respectively. At the conclusion of round 3, there was 90% agreement and it was considered that the nonconsensus items required in-depth face-to-face discussion at a consensus meeting, which is described in part 2 of the study. Conclusion: The Delphi study provided an opportunity to engage specialist teams in recognized centers to integrate their clinical knowledge and draw on published data to develop a consensus of evidence-based responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
