Share Page:

Volume 28 , Issue 4
July/August 2013

Pages 10901100

Rehabilitation of Children with Ectodermal Dysplasia. Part 1: An International Delphi Study

Iven Klineberg, BSc, MDS, PhD/Angus Cameron, BDS, MDSc/Terry Whittle, BSocSci (Psych)/John Hobkirk, Dr Med H C, PhD, BDS/Birgitta Bergendal, DDS, PhD/Marie-Cecile Maniere, DDS, MSc, PhD/Nigel King, BDS, MSc, PhD/Richard Palmer, BDS, PhD/Ross Hobson, BDS, MDS, PhD, MOrth/Clark Stanford, DDS, PhD/Kenneth Kurtz, BA, DDS/Arun Sharma, BDS, MSc/Albert Guckes, BS, DDS, MSD

PMID: 23869367
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2980

Purpose: An international Delphi study was undertaken to determine by consensus an agreed approach to the management of children with dental manifestations of ectodermal dysplasia, including the use of dental implants. This was done using a questionnaire developed by an interdisciplinary team. Materials and Methods: The Delphi study questionnaire was built around 19 areas of clinical relevance and included 90 items. Topic areas included dental disability; initial diagnosis; global disability; oral health aspects of dental treatment (orthodontics, hypodontia, anodontia, implants); and case studies of selected treatment options. Eleven teams from six countries contributed to three iterations of the questionnaire. An algorithm was designed to standardize analysis of the questionnaire answers, all of which were blinded to ensure anonymity. The second and third rounds of the questionnaire excluded previously agreed-upon items but included the responses to the questions from the earlier rounds. The nonconsensus items inquired about the use of radiographs at initial diagnosis; sedation of an uncooperative child; use of a pretreatment questionnaire; the age range for specific treatments (eg, dentures, orthodontics, implants); specific uses of implants (eg, partial prostheses, overdentures, cantilevered prostheses); and case study 2. The residual nonconsensus questions were subsequently discussed at a 2-day meeting. Results: Among the 90 questions and partial questions, there was progressive consensus, with agreements in rounds 1, 2, and 3 of 61%, 21%, and 8%, respectively. At the conclusion of round 3, there was 90% agreement and it was considered that the nonconsensus items required in-depth face-to-face discussion at a consensus meeting, which is described in part 2 of the study. Conclusion: The Delphi study provided an opportunity to engage specialist teams in recognized centers to integrate their clinical knowledge and draw on published data to develop a consensus of evidence-based responses

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2018 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us