Literature DB >> 18068603

Treatment outcomes in a graduate orthodontic clinic for cases defined by the American Board of Orthodontics malocclusion categories.

Charee L Campbell1, W Eugene Roberts, James K Hartsfield, Rong Qi.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) discrepancy index (DI) quantifies the severity of a malocclusion. The ABO objective grading system (OGS) assesses the quality of orthodontic finishing. Indiana University's comprehensive clinical assessment (CCA) supplements the OGS to provide an instrument to determine clinical outcomes. The purposes of this article were to (1) determine whether treatment outcome is related to the type of malocclusion as defined by the ABO classification, (2) determine the fraction of finished orthodontic cases in the graduate orthodontics clinic that are within the ABO standards for passing the phase III clinical examination, (3) evaluate the contribution of each component of the OGS and the CCA to the total OGS and CCA scores, (4) determine the percentage of finished cases that meet the ABO case category specifications, and (5) identify problem areas to improve the quality of treatment for challenging malocclusions.
METHODS: Three hundred eighty-two cases that satisfied requirements for 8 of the ABO's malocclusion categories were selected from 989 consecutively finished cases from 1998 through 2003. They were evaluated by using the OGS, the CCA, and the DI.
RESULTS: The average OGS score was 32.64, the average CCA score was 5.62, and the average DI score was 20.94. There was no significant difference in the OGS and the CCA scores among the categories. Categories 2, 5, 7, and 8 had a DI score that was significantly higher than the average for the entire sample. The OGS and CCA scores were positively correlated with the DI score, meaning that complex malocclusions are challenging to finish well. The most points lost for the OGS and the CCA were for occlusal contacts and treatment efficiency (length of treatment relative to the result), respectively. The fewest points lost were for interproximal contacts and vertical control, respectively. Furthermore, prematurely terminated cases (early debonds) had longer treatment times and higher (worse) OGS and CCA scores.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates problems in treating complex malocclusions in a graduate orthodontics program and suggests methods for increasing the quality of clinical outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18068603     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.036

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


  10 in total

1.  Orthodontic treatment outcomes obtained by application of a finishing protocol.

Authors:  Alvaro Carvajal-Flórez; Diana María Barbosa-Lis; Oscar Arturo Zapata-Noreña; Julissa Andrea Marín-Velásquez; Sergio Andrés Afanador-Bayona
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr

2.  Changes in university orthodontic care over a period of 20 years : Patient characteristics, treatment quality, and treatment costs.

Authors:  Julia von Bremen; Eva Maria Streckbein; Sabine Ruf
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Clinical outcomes for patients finished with the SureSmile™ method compared with conventional fixed orthodontic therapy.

Authors:  Timothy J Alford; W Eugene Roberts; James K Hartsfield; George J Eckert; Ronald J Snyder
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-01-24       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Effectiveness of computer-assisted orthodontic treatment technology to achieve predicted outcomes.

Authors:  Brent E Larson; Christopher J Vaubel; Thorsten Grünheid
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  Evaluation of treatment outcomes in a 3 years post-graduate orthodontic program using the peer assessment rating (par).

Authors:  Paloma González-Gil-de-Bernabé; Carlos Bellot-Arcís; José M Montiel-Company; José L Gandía-Franco
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2014-10-01

6.  Treatment outcome differences between pass and fail scores and correlation between cephalometric changes and cast-radiograph evaluation of the American Board of Orthodontics.

Authors:  Siew Peng Neoh; Chulaluk Komoltri; Nita Viwattanatipa
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2018-11-15

7.  Orthodontic Treatment and Healthcare Goals: Evaluation of Multibrackets Treatment Results Using PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating).

Authors:  Maria Francesca Sfondrini; Paolo Zampetti; Giulia Luscher; Paola Gandini; José Luís Gandía-Franco; Andrea Scribante
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2020-11-10

8.  Effects of self-ligating brackets and other factors influencing orthodontic treatment outcomes: A prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Min-Ho Jung
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 1.372

9.  Relationship between pretreatment case complexity and orthodontic clinical outcomes determined by the American Board of Orthodontics criteria.

Authors:  Hatice Akinci Cansunar; Tancan Uysal
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Orthodontic Treatment Characteristics and Outcomes in an Educational Setting.

Authors:  T Al-Jewair; V Ryan; S Warunek
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2020-04-30
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.