Orthodontic emergencies and mental state of Chinese orthodontic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Background The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic postponed routine follow-up visits of many orthodontic patients, which compromised their treatment process and mental states. This study was aimed to assess orthodontic emergency occurrence and psychological states of Chinese orthodontic patients during this pandemic. Methods Orthodontic patients in China were invited to answer an anonymous online questionnaire from February 20, 2020 to March 5, 2020, when routine dental care was suspended in China. The questionnaire included self-assessment of oral hygiene and compliance, orthodontic emergencies, perceptions and feelings about COVID-19 and anxiety self-rating scale, etc. Collected data was statistically analyzed with Chi-square, independent t test and univariable generalized estimating equations regression analysis. Results A total of 1078 respondents (292 male; 786 female) from 30 provinces of China were included in this study. About one-third (33.67%) of patients reported that they encountered orthodontic problems during the pandemic. Patients with clear aligners reported fewer orthodontic problems than those with fixed appliances or removable appliances. Female patients, elder patients and patients who encountered orthodontic emergencies were more anxious than other patients. Conclusions The compliance and occurrence of orthodontic emergencies differed in patients with different orthodontic appliances. Patients with orthodontic emergencies exhibited higher anxiety states.

Dental Patients’ Perspective on COVID-19: A Systematic Review

“…The overall risk of bias assessment of the included studies is presented in Tables S1 and S2 in Supplementary Materials. Five studies reported a moderate level of bias [21][22][23][24][25], while the remaining five studies showed low quality [26][27][28][29][30].…”

“…In surveys administered through online platforms (Table S1 in Supplementary Materials), all studies reported the survey design describing the target population or sample frame. For IRB approval and informed consent process, IRB approval was obtained by seven out of eight studies [21][22][23][24]26,29,30], informed consent was obtained by four studies [22,25,28,29], and data protection was reported by only one study [22], while it was not applicable by four surveys [21,23,27,29]. Development and pre-testing were performed by only two studies [22,30].…”

“…For the recruitment process and description of the sample having access to the questionnaire, a closed survey was applied by all studies; only one indicated that the contact mode was not through the Internet [21], while advertising to announce the survey was carried out only by Moffat et al [22]. All surveys were administered through the web or by email; six out of eight surveys described the context [21][22][23][24]28,30], and only two studies were not mandatory surveys [28,30]. Only one study used incentives [22], although this item was applicable for only two studies [21,22].…”

“…Only one study used incentives [22], although this item was applicable for only two studies [21,22]. The timeframe was identified in five studies [21][22][23][24]28]. All included studies did not report the number of items, number of screens, and completeness check, while review steps were only adopted by Peloso et al [29].…”

“…Information about the handling of incomplete questionnaires was not described. Statistical corrections were adopted by five studies [21][22][23][24]28].…”