David T Waring

Three-part bi-maxillary osteotomy: a case report involving resorbable plates

This case report describes a patient who presented with a severe class 2 skeletal discrepancy together with a Class II malocclusion and a large anterior open bite. The malocclusion and skeletal discrepancy were managed with a combination of orthodontic and orthognathic treatment. The orthognathic surgery was undertaken following orthodontic decompensation using sectional mechanics to allow a segmental bimaxillary osteotomy and genioplasty to be performed. Although the discrepancy was severe using this combination of treatment, a successful outcome, both facially and occlusally, was achieved.

The Manchester positioner – dual retention made easy

Accurate easy placement bonded retainers have long been a desired aspect of contemporary orthodontic treatment. This article offers the reader a simple and precise method of placing a fixed bonded retainer. This technique also has the advantage of providing a retainer that can be used as both the positioner and the dual removable retainer.

Reply letters following orthodontic consultations: an audit of Merseyside general dental practitioners' satisfaction.

Objectives To assess the opinions of general dental practitioners (GDPs) working within the National Health Service (NHS) in Merseyside regarding the length, format and appropriateness of consultant orthodontists’ letters sent in reply to referral letters. Main outcome measures These were GDPs’ satisfaction with the length, format and content of the reply letters; GDPs’ preferences for the information deemed necessary in such letters; GDPs’ awareness of the status of their patients and the actions they were requested to undertake. Method After piloting, questionnaires were mailed to 330 participating GDPs between August and October 2004. Results Two hundred and fifty-one (76%) questionnaires were returned. With one exception, the length of consultants’ letters was thought to be adequate. Of the responding GDPs 82% stated a preference for summaries of the diagnosis and treatment plan to be presented in a list format rather than as free text. Aspects of the treatment plan were thought to be more important than the information about the examination. Following receipt of the reply letter only 71% of GDPs were aware of what was happening to their patients and 75% knew what actions they were to undertake. Conclusions This audit provides evidence that GDPs consider that a significant portion of the information in consultants’ reply letters is not needed. Relevant information may be poorly communicated.