Abstract
In orthodontics, cost effectiveness is especially difficult to assess because of the wide range of problems and cures and a lack of precise scientific information about their success rates. While many would accept that the basic problem is skeletal disproportion, there are diverse views about the underlying cause. Over the last hundred years treatment has ranged from extracting teeth in every patient to never extracting teeth, each view being held with fierce conviction. You would think that a bit of clear-minded research would have settled the debate. But no, there is still wide disagreement.
Article PDF
References
Sackett D . Professor of Evidenced Based Research at Oxord. ‘Nine years later; a commentary on revisiting the Moyers symposium’. 1994 Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Richards D . ‘London Evidence-based Symposium’ EBD 2000; 2:3–4.
Shaw WC . How relevant is the evidence-based process to orthodontics? EBD 2000;2:7–8.
Robinson S 2001 British Orthodontic Society Annual Conference, Brighton U.K.
Tulloch JFC, Phillips C, and Profitt WR “Benefit of early Class II treatment: Progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial”. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1998 Volume 113:62–72.
Shaw WC, Asher-McDade A, Brallstrom V, Dahl E, McWilliam J, Molsted K, Plint DA, Prahl-Andersen B, Semb G . A six centre international study of treatment outcomes in patients with cleft lip and palate: part 1 principals and study design. Cleft Palate–Cran J 1992; 29:393–397.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mew, J. Are random controlled trials appropriate for orthodontics?. Evid Based Dent 3, 35–36 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400099
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400099
This article is cited by
-
Science versus empiricism
British Dental Journal (2005)