<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate the treatment risks and the quality of information contained within the websites of specialist orthodontists in Australia.</p></sec><sec><h3>Methods</h3><p>The term ‘specialist orthodontic practice’ was entered into three internet search engines. Websites satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria were evaluated for orthodontic treatment risk information against nine common treatment risks. For website reliability and quality, the DISCERN instrument was used along with the HON (health on the net) seal certification; and for readability, the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) Test was applied.</p></sec><sec><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 105 websites that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4.8% reported all nine risks. No risks were reported by 17.1%. Relapse (64.8%) was the most common risk recorded on websites, followed by ‘pain/discomfort’ (63.8%). Root resorption was reported by 5.7%. The requirement for life-long retention was indicated by 22.9% of the websites and 57.1% gave advice on sports mouthguard wear. The proposed benefits of orthodontic treatment were outlined by 85.7%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) overall DISCERN score was 43.78 (SD 6.49; range 17–59). No website displayed the HON Seal certification. The mean FRE Score was 51.71 (SD 10.19; range 30.1–74.7).</p></sec><sec><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Information regarding orthodontic treatment risks contained within specialist orthodontic practice websites appears deficient. Websites were of variable reliability, quality and readability. Further development of specialist orthodontists’ websites is required to ensure the delivery of accessible, reliable and understandable evidence-based information to patients.</p></sec></abstract>

ObjectiveTo evaluate the treatment risks and the quality of information contained within the websites of specialist orthodontists in Australia.MethodsThe term ‘specialist orthodontic practice’ was entered into three internet search engines. Websites satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria were evaluated for orthodontic treatment risk information against nine common treatment risks. For website reliability and quality, the DISCERN instrument was used along with the HON (health on the net) seal certification; and for readability, the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) Test was applied.ResultsOf the 105 websites that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 4.8% reported all nine risks. No risks were reported by 17.1%. Relapse (64.8%) was the most common risk recorded on websites, followed by ‘pain/discomfort’ (63.8%). Root resorption was reported by 5.7%. The requirement for life-long retention was indicated by 22.9% of the websites and 57.1% gave advice on sports mouthguard wear. The proposed benefits of orthodontic treatment were outlined by 85.7%. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) overall DISCERN score was 43.78 (SD 6.49; range 17–59). No website displayed the HON Seal certification. The mean FRE Score was 51.71 (SD 10.19; range 30.1–74.7).ConclusionsInformation regarding orthodontic treatment risks contained within specialist orthodontic practice websites appears deficient. Websites were of variable reliability, quality and readability. Further development of specialist orthodontists’ websites is required to ensure the delivery of accessible, reliable and understandable evidence-based information to patients.

Evaluation of treatment risks and the quality of information contained within the websites of specialist orthodontists

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the treatment risks and the quality of information contained within the websites of specialist orthodontists in Australia.MethodsThe term...

Evaluation of treatment risks and the quality of information contained within the websites of specialist orthodontists

Online veröffentlicht: 20. Juli 2021

Seitenbereich: 143 - 151

Eingereicht: 01. Sept. 2018

Akzeptiert: 01. Juli 2019

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-043

© 2019 Maurice J. Meade et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.