ArticleEuropean journal of orthodontics2025
Consensus on orthodontic treatment eligibility in Finnish health care system - A comparative analysis of assessment.
Article in European journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn many European countries, orthodontic treatment is offered in publicly funded healthcare to those with severe malocclusion. In the Finnish public health care, the modified Grainger's treatment priority index (TPI) is used to determine malocclusion severity and treatment eligibility. The uniform use of occlusal indexes is crucial for equitable treatment allocation.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate equity in access to orthodontic care in one wellbeing services county in Finland. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted five calibration events, where five orthodontists were calibrated against one gold standard orthodontist with the longest clinical experience. All the orthodontists independently clinically examined random groups of patients using the Finnish modified TPI scoring. The malocclusion severity scores, diagnosis codes, and the determined treatment eligibility were subsequently compared. Agreement between the orthodontists was analyzed with Cohen's Kappa and Bland-Altman statistics.
resultsIn total, 166 patients, aged 6-63 years, were examined across the calibrations, each representing a comparison between one of the five orthodontists and the gold standard. The agreement between the orthodontists was found to be substantial. The same judgement on treatment eligibility was made in 145 out of 166 cases (87%), whereas a different decision on treatment eligibility was made in 21 cases (13%).
conclusionsDespite the high level of interobserver agreement, differences in eligibility judgement were observed, which may have important consequences for the patient with respect to treatment provision. Therefore, systematic calibration and regular training in the use of national occlusal indexes should be implemented for all orthodontists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.