Motivation for orthognathic treatment and anticipated satisfaction levels—a two-centre cross-national audit. Issue 6 (June 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Patcas, Raphael; Cunningham, Susan J.; Shute, Justin; Lloyd, Timothy; Obwegeser, Joachim A.; Arjomand, Lida; Sharma, Sujata
• Is Part Of: Journal of cranio-maxillofacial surgery. Volume 45:Issue 6(2017)
• Page Start: 1004
• Page End: 1009
• Publication Date: 2017-06
• Subjects: Orthognathic surgery -- Motivation -- Satisfaction -- Confidence -- Demographics -- Audit; Skull -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Maxilla -- surgery -- Periodicals; Face -- surgery -- Periodicals; Skull -- surgery -- Periodicals; Oral Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Reconstructive Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Surgery, Plastic -- Periodicals; Surgery, Oral -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 617.514
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.03.012
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1010-5182

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: This audit investigated factors which motivate patients to seek orthognathic treatment, assessed how confident patients were that they would be satisfied with the outcome of treatment, and explored possible influencing factors. Materials and methods: Questionnaires were distributed to pre-surgical patients at two centres (United Kingdom and Switzerland); questions asked what patients wished to gain from orthognathic treatment and how confident they were that they would be satisfied with treatment outcome. Gender, age and location were recorded as demographic variables, and type of malocclusion was also recorded. Results: A total of 202 questionnaires were returned (UK, n = 149; Switzerland, n = 53). Reported motivating factors focused on improvements in aesthetics (specified and unspecified) (UK vs. Switzerland: 91.3% vs. 83.0%), function (72.5% vs. 66.0%), psychosocial health (51.7% vs. 20.8%), speech (4.0% vs. 7.5%), alleviation of pain (5.4% vs. 17%) and normalization of breathing (1.3% vs. 7.5%). No significant relationships were observed relative to patient age, gender or malocclusion. The anticipated satisfaction levels were generally high (86.5% vs. 89.9%). Conclusion: Although the distribution of motivational factors varied between the two sites, it did not affect the anticipated satisfaction level. Patients were generally confident that they would be satisfied with their treatment outcome and that their reasons for seeking treatment would be addressed.