Bibliographic Details
| Title: |
Skeletal versus conventional anchorage in dentofacial orthopedics: an international modified Delphi consensus study |
| Authors: |
Lorenzo Franchi, Maria Denisa Statie, Tommaso Clauser, Marco Migliorati, Alessandro Ugolini, Rosaria Bucci, Roberto Rongo, Riccardo Nucera, Marco Portelli, James A. McNamara, Michele Nieri, Sercan Akyalcin, Fernanda Angelieri, Daniele Cantarella, Paolo Cattaneo, Lucia Cevidanes, Luca Contardo, Marie Cornelis, Renzo De Gabriele, Carlos Flores Mir, Daniela Garib, Giorgio Iodice, Antonino Lo Giudice, Luca Lombardo, Björn Ludwig, Cesare Luzi, Maria Costanza Meazzini, Peter Ngan, Tung Nguyen, Alexandra Papadopoulou, Spyridon Papageorgiou, Jae Hyun Park, Sabine Ruf, Bernardo Souki, Benedict Wilmes, Heinz Winsauer |
| Source: |
Progress in Orthodontics, Vol 26, Iss 1, Pp 1-14 (2025) |
| Publisher Information: |
SpringerOpen, 2025. |
| Publication Year: |
2025 |
| Collection: |
LCC:Dentistry |
| Subject Terms: |
Maxillary transverse deficiency, Class II malocclusion, Class III malocclusion, Skeletal anchorage, Dentistry, RK1-715 |
| More Details: |
Abstract Background To establish consensus of skeletal anchorage versus conventional anchorage in treating: 1. Maxillary transverse deficiency in growing and adult patients, 2. Class II skeletal disharmony due to mandibular retrusion in growing patients, 3. Class III skeletal disharmony in growing patients. Methods A four-rounds modified Delphi method was conducted. A steering committee performed a literature selection and compiled a list of 33 statements. An international panel of 25 experts in orthodontics agreed to participate. In each round, panelists were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale and provide comments. Statements that reached consensus were either accepted or rephrased. Statements that did not reach consensus were either rephrased, rejected, or split into two statements or merged with another. Results After the four rounds, 24 statements achieved consensus while 9 were rejected. The distribution of consensus statements was as follows: Maxillary transverse deficiency: 4 statements; Class II skeletal disharmony: 10 statements; Class III skeletal disharmony: 10 statements. Conclusions This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to provide guidance for orthodontists in choosing between skeletal and conventional anchorage for various treatment conditions. The study generated 24 consensus statements across three key domains. While the Delphi method provides valuable expert opinions, future studies, including randomized controlled trials, are needed to confirm these findings and address remaining uncertainties. Such efforts will aid in refining orthodontic treatment protocols and enhancing patient outcomes. |
| Document Type: |
article |
| File Description: |
electronic resource |
| Language: |
English |
| ISSN: |
2196-1042 |
| Relation: |
https://doaj.org/toc/2196-1042 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s40510-025-00556-4 |
| Access URL: |
https://doaj.org/article/ad25a819b55e4bbdb672c9d5f0e24f93 |
| Accession Number: |
edsdoj.25a819b55e4bbdb672c9d5f0e24f93 |
| Database: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
