Literature DB >> 12750665

Comparison of peer assessment ratings (PAR) from 1-phase and 2-phase treatment protocols for Class II malocclusions.

Gregory J King1, Susan P McGorray, Timothy T Wheeler, Calogero Dolce, Marie Taylor.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the dentoalveolar outcomes after 1-phase and 2-phase orthodontic treatment of Class II malocclusions. Class II subjects (n = 208) were randomized to 1-phase or 2-phase treatment with either bionator or headgear/biteplate. The peer assessment rating (PAR) was calculated from pretreatment, prephase 2, and final study models. Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to evaluate the differences among treatment groups, sexes, races, pretreatment, mandibular plane angle, severity, and compliance. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to examine relationships between PAR at different times. The dropout rate of 24.6% did not adversely affect the ability to detect differences of clinical importance or impact treatment groups disproportionately. There were no significant differences with respect to initial PAR or final PAR among the 3 treatment protocols. The 2 early treatment groups had lower PAR scores than the 1-phase group before phase 2 (P =.0001). Lower PAR scores were achieved at both the beginning and end of phase 2 in girls (P =.03; P =.02, respectively). There were differences in the pre-phase-2 and post-phase-2 PAR scores based on initial severity (P =.0006; P =.02, respectively), with greater improvement in the patients whose malocclusions were less severe initially. Mandibular plane angle had no effect on pre-phase-2 or post-phase-2 PAR scores. These results do not support the hypothesis that different dentoalveolar outcomes are obtained between 2-phase and 1-phase treatment of Class II malocclusions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12750665     DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.S0889540603000453

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  8 in total

1.  RCTs are here to stay.

Authors:  Henning Madsen
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2016-03-11       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Comparison of early treatment outcomes rendered in three different types of malocclusions.

Authors:  Valmy Pangrazio-Kulbersh; He-Kyong Kang; Archana Dhawan; Riyad Al-Qawasmi; Rafael Rocha Pacheco
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Randomized clinical trial of interceptive and comprehensive orthodontics.

Authors:  G J King; C F Spiekerman; G M Greenlee; G J Huang
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 6.116

4.  Quality of orthodontic treatment performed by orthodontists and general dentists.

Authors:  Leandro Silva Marques; Nacler de Freitas Junior; Luciano José Pereira; Maria Letícia Ramos-Jorge
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  EVIDENCE AND CLINICAL DECISIONS: Asking the Right Questions to Obtain Clinically Useful Answers.

Authors:  William R Proffit
Journal:  Semin Orthod       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 0.970

Review 6.  Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents.

Authors:  Klaus Bsl Batista; Badri Thiruvenkatachari; Jayne E Harrison; Kevin D O'Brien
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-03-13

7.  Frequency evaluation of different extraction protocols in orthodontic treatment during 35 years.

Authors:  Guilherme Janson; Fábio Rogério Torres Maria; Roberto Bombonatti
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 2.750

8.  Assessment of the Attitude and Knowledge of the Principles and Practices of Orthodontic Treatment Among the Non-orthodontic Specialists and General Practitioner Dentists.

Authors:  Deepika Kapoor; Sandeep Bhatia; Deepanshu Garg
Journal:  JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc       Date:  2018 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 0.406

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.