Interproximal Reduction: Different perspectives between Orthodontists and General Dentists

Annam Imtiaz; Ch. Rehan Qamar; Nahal Zohra; Hareem Hussain; Tayyaba Nayyab; Tooba Saeed

Author(s)

Annam Imtiaz Departments of Orthodontics, de’ Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan

Ch. Rehan Qamar University College of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Lahore, Pakistan

Nahal Zohra University College of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Lahore, Pakistan

Hareem Hussain University College of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Lahore, Pakistan

Tayyaba Nayyab University College of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Lahore, Pakistan

Tooba Saeed University College of Medicine and Dentistry, The University of Lahore, Pakistan

Abstract

Objective: To assess the perception among general dentists and orthodontists regarding clinical practices related to Interproximal reduction (IPR). Methodology: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted from 16th September 2023 to 31st March 2024. The non-probability convenience sampling technique was used. We distributed online questionnaires to general dentists and orthodontists. The questionnaire consisted of 11 items about the utilization of IPR, routine protocol, methodology adopted by the groups to perform IPR, and perspectives related to hesitancy for the execution of the procedure. The statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 25. Results: General dentists and orthodontists utilized IPR as a routine procedure for space creation (p=0.07). General dentists were more concerned about aesthetics and preferred posterior teeth for IPR than orthodontists (p=0.04). Orthodontists outweigh the benefits of IPR versus the associated potential risks (p=0.03). Orthodontists had researched more about the outcome studies associated with IPR (p=0.002). Conclusion: General dentists and orthodontists performed IPR as a routine procedure. Due to aesthetic concerns, general dentists preferred posterior teeth over anterior teeth to perform IPR. Most orthodontists showed interest in IPR's effects and were more willing to perform it on themselves than General Dentists.

Publication Details

Page(s) 117-120

DOI DOI not available

Published Journal: Rawal Medical Journal, Volume: 50, Issue: 1, Year: 2025

Request the full text from PASTIC

Keywords

perception, dentists, orthodontists, interproximal reduction.

References

Dahhas FY,Almutairi NS,Almutairi RS,Alshamrani HA,Alshyai HS,Almazyad RK,Outcomes. Cureus RK .2024 .The Role of Interproximal Reduction (IPR) in Clear Aligner Therapy: A Critical Analysis of Indications, Techniques, and. , 16 : e56644.

Cuzin JF,Gaget D,Maes P,Bottenberg P,Vande Vannet B,Asscherickx K. .2024 .Assessment of interproximal enamel reduction planned by the digital set-up of a customized lingual orthodontic appliance: A comparison cohort study. Heliyon, 10 : e24361.

Serbanoiu DC,Vartolomei AC,Ghiga DV,Pop SI,Panainte I,Moldovan M .2024 .Comparative evaluation of dental enamel microhardness following various methods of interproximal reduction: A Vickers hardness tester investigation. Biomedicines, 12 : 1132-6.

Lee DS,Sulkowski T,Bocklage C,Frazier-Bowers SA,Wiesen C,Mihas P .2022 .Identifying factors that impact General Dentists' referrals to orthodontists. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 161 : e147-e171.

Chate R .2013 .Truth or consequences: the potential implications of short-term cosmetic orthodontics for General dental practitioners. Br Dent J, 215 : 551-553.

Sastri MR,Tanpure VR,Palagi FB,Shinde SK,Ladhe K,Polepalle T. .2015 .Study of the knowledge and attitude about principles and practices of orthodontic treatment among General dental practitioners and non-orthodontic specialties. J Int Oral Health, 7 : 44-8.

Mustilwar RG,Shetti AN,Mani A,Kale PP,Ortho-Perio PP .2022 .- A review. IP Int J Periodontol Implantol, 7 : 150-3.

Berk NW,Bush HD,Cavalier J,Kapur R,StudenPavlovich D,Sciote J .2002 .General practitioners. J Orthod, 29 : 287-91.

Laganà G,Malara A,Lione R,Danesi C,Meuli S,Cozza P .2021 .Enamel interproximal reduction during treatment with clear aligners: digital planning versus Ortho CAD analysis. BMC Oral Health, 21 : 199-204.

Park JH,Kim JH,Bay RC,Darendeliler MA,Wishney M,Nagel NJ .2021 .Trends in the choice of a clinician for orthodontic treatment in the United States. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 159 : 766-73.

Barcoma E,Shroff B,Best AM,Shoff MC,Lindauer SJ .2015 .Interproximal reduction of teeth: differences in perspective between orthodontists and Dentists. Angle Orthod, 85 : 820-25.

Best AD,Shroff B,Carrico CK,Lindauer SJ .2017 .Treatment management between orthodontists and General practitioners performing clear aligner therapy. Angle Orthod, 87 : 432-9.

Serbanoiu DC,Vartolomei AC,Boileau MJ,Muntean A,Ghiga DV,Pacurar M .2024 .Statistical Study Concerning Extraction and Non-Extraction Methods in Orthodontic Treatments. Curr Health Sci J, 50 : 67-73.

Meade MJ,Weir T. .2024 .A Cross-Sectional Survey of the Use of Clear Aligners by General Dentists in Australia. Clin Exp Dent Res, 10 : e919.

Weir T,Shailendran A,Freer E .2022 .Prevalence of interproximal tooth reduction prescribed as part of initial Invisalign treatment in 10 orthodontic practices. Austr Orthod J, 38 : 96-101.

Donovan J,Millett DT,Harding M. .2024 .Interproximal reduction in orthodontics: Reported practices and perceptions of orthodontists in the Republic of Ireland. J Ir Dent Assoc, 10 : e1-6.

Marques LS,de Freitas Junior N,Pereira LJ,Ramos-Jorge ML .2012 .Quality of orthodontic treatment performed by orthodontists and General Dentists: A blind comparative evaluation. Angle Orthod, 82 : 102-6.