ArticleBMC oral health2026
Development and application of a multidimensional instrument to evaluate competency discrepancies in orthodontic practice.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundContemporary orthodontic practice faces challenges related to treatment complications, often linked to deficiencies in multidisciplinary clinical competency. A clear understanding of the coordination across the stomatognathic system is essential, yet no standardized instrument exists to assess core skills. This study aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive assessment tool and evaluate current competency levels and associated factors among Chinese orthodontists across dental, periodontal, temporomandibular joint (TMJ), and myofunctional domains.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted across multiple regions of China from January to June 2025 among 434 practicing orthodontists. A three-component assessment instrument was developed through systematic expert review: Subjective Competency Scale (SCS), Clinical Practice Behavior Scale (CPBS), and Objective Knowledge Test for Orthodontists (OKTO). Psychometric properties were evaluated through exploratory factor analysis, reliability testing, and validity assessment. Competency variations across four domains were analyzed using Friedman tests, and demographic predictors were identified through stepwise multiple regression.
resultsThe instrument demonstrated satisfactory reliability (SCS: Cronbach’s α = 0.897) and validity. Significant competency disparities existed across domains (all p < 0.001). Orthodontists showed highest competencies in dental areas (SCS: 4.45 ± 0.77; practice compliance: 78.00%) but substantial deficits in TMJ (SCS: 3.33 ± 1.17; practice compliance: 56.45%) and myofunctional domains. Objective knowledge patterns revealed adequate TMJ knowledge (82.58%) but poor myofunctional understanding (68.26%). Educational attainment emerged as the strongest predictor (β = 0.262, p < 0.001), followed by age (β = 0.201) and continuing education participation (β = 0.127).
conclusionsThis study represents an initial attempt to develop and validate a multidimensional competency assessment framework for orthodontists, with the aim of offering a structured approach to evaluating interdisciplinary clinical competencies. TMJ and myofunctional domain-specific deficiencies, which were found to be associated with educational attainment, may serve as potential risk factors affecting treatment stability and complication prevention within the Chinese clinical context. This instrument, with preliminary validation evidence based on a Chinese sample, offers a tentative framework for systematic competency evaluation that requires further validation across diverse contexts.
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.