This case report describes a 13-year-old patient suffering from osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) and hypodontia. Different issues related to clinical presentation and orthodontic treatment of patients with OI are discussed in this report. Clinical Relevance: Dental and orthodontic features associated with OI and their impact on treatment are described in this report. It is important to know these features as patients presenting with OI may require orthodontic treatment.

Background: Orthognathic clinics across England are currently run in a multidisciplinary team (MDT) format. It is, however, likely that there is a large variation in the style of these clinics and care pathways for orthognathic patients across the country. This is a cross-sectional, online questionnaire with a primary aim to obtain information on the way orthognathic care is currently delivered throughout England. The secondary objectives were to determine the compliance to the minimum dataset for record collection. The questionnaire, disseminated to orthodontic consultants, detailed 27 items split into waiting lists for new patients, mechanics of the clinic, support for patients and record collection. Results: A total of 36 participants responded (one was excluded) to give a total of 35 questionnaire responses. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data. Of the participants, 34% followed up their patients as per the commissioning guidelines at 1, 2 and 5 years after treatment. Of the participants, 20% said patients’ mental health would be screened before adding them to a waiting list, with 26% of participants stating screening was not undertaken for all patients. Of the participants, 11% had available access to psychological support during the MDT meeting and 20% recorded the minimum dataset at the follow-up intervals. Conclusion: There are inconsistencies in the orthognathic MDT design across England. Acceptance criteria, support services available and records collected for patients showed substantial variation, highlighting the limited guidance offered by the commissioning guidelines and the potential need to revise the minimum dataset.

The photographic superimposition method eliminates exposure to ionizing radiation and is relatively inexpensive. However, it is not reliable enough to deliver accurate information on the position of teeth in the face.