OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a significant difference in the clinical outcomes of cases treated with 0.018-inch brackets vs 0.022-inch brackets according to the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Objective Grading System (OGS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment time and the ABO-OGS standards in alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationships, occlusal contacts, interproximal contacts, and root angulations were used to compare clinical outcomes between a series of 828 consecutively completed orthodontic cases (2005-2008) treated in a university graduate orthodontic clinic with 0.018-inch- and 0.022-inch-slot brackets. RESULTS: A two-sample t-test showed a significantly shorter treatment time and lower ABO-OGS score in four categories (alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, overjet, and root angulations), as well as lower total ABO-OGS total score, with the 0.018-inch brackets. The ANCOVA-adjusting for covariants of discrepancy index, age, gender, and treatment time-showed that the 0.018-inch brackets scored significantly lower than the 0.022-inch brackets in both the alignment/rotations category and total ABO-OGS score. CONCLUSIONS: There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in treatment times and in total ABO-OGS scores in favor of 0.018-inch brackets as compared with the 0.022-inch brackets in a university graduate orthodontic clinic (2005-2008).
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a significant difference in the clinical outcomes of cases treated with 0.018-inch brackets vs 0.022-inch brackets according to the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Objective Grading System (OGS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment time and the ABO-OGS standards in alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationships, occlusal contacts, interproximal contacts, and root angulations were used to compare clinical outcomes between a series of 828 consecutively completed orthodontic cases (2005-2008) treated in a university graduate orthodontic clinic with 0.018-inch- and 0.022-inch-slot brackets. RESULTS: A two-sample t-test showed a significantly shorter treatment time and lower ABO-OGS score in four categories (alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, overjet, and root angulations), as well as lower total ABO-OGS total score, with the 0.018-inch brackets. The ANCOVA-adjusting for covariants of discrepancy index, age, gender, and treatment time-showed that the 0.018-inch brackets scored significantly lower than the 0.022-inch brackets in both the alignment/rotations category and total ABO-OGS score. CONCLUSIONS: There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in treatment times and in total ABO-OGS scores in favor of 0.018-inch brackets as compared with the 0.022-inch brackets in a university graduate orthodontic clinic (2005-2008).
Authors: Thomas J Cangialosi; Michael L Riolo; S Ed Owens; Vance J Dykhouse; Allen H Moffitt; John E Grubb; Peter M Greco; Jeryl D English; R Don James Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: J S Casko; J L Vaden; V G Kokich; J Damone; R D James; T J Cangialosi; M L Riolo; S E Owens; E D Bills Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 1998-11 Impact factor: 2.650