To assess Norwegian orthodontists’ perspectives concerning use of Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs). A web-based survey (78 questions) was distributed to all 345 members of the Norwegian Association of Orthodontists. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, Chi-square, Fisher’s Exact, or Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied. Seventy-one orthodontists responded (low response rate of 20.6%). Use of TADs in the buccal/lingual alveolar process, buccal shelf or retromolar pad (ABR) was reported by 41.5%; 29.2% were previous users, 9.2% intended future use, and 20.0% had never used. For palatal TADs, corresponding values were 29.2%, 15.4%, 23.1%, 32.3%; for miniplates: 0%, 10.8%, 21.5% and 67.7%. No associations were found between TAD use and orthodontists’ demographics, clinical experience, or practice type. Common indications included molar mesialization, distalization and posterior intrusion – the latter related to practitioner experience (P = 0.041). Frequent complications included screw loosening (91.3%) and soft-tissue overgrowth/irritation (80.4%). Barriers to use included procedural invasiveness and insufficient training, while discontinuation was attributed to complications, chair time, failures, invasiveness and patient discomfort. Over the preceding five years, 23.9% reported increased use, while 43.5% noted a decline. Among current users, satisfaction with ABR and palatal TADs was 69.2% and 70.6%, respectively. The respondents reported reduced treatment time (55.1%) and improved predictability (79%) when TADs were used. Among responding Norwegian orthodontists, TAD use was reported by a moderate proportion, with a noted decline over the five years preceding the survey. Among users, satisfaction was generally high. All forms of relevant education were identified as key factors in their adoption.
Tostrup et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: