Literature DB >> 21261488

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

Timothy J Alford1, W Eugene Roberts, James K Hartsfield, George J Eckert, Ronald J Snyder.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Utilize American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) cast/radiographic evaluation (CRE) to compare a series of 63 consecutive patients, finished with manual wire bending (conventional) treatment, vs a subsequent series of 69 consecutive patients, finished by the same orthodontist using the SureSmile™ (SS) method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records of 132 nonextraction patients were scored by a calibrated examiner blinded to treatment mode. Age and discrepancy index (DI) between groups were compared by t-tests. A chi-square test was used to compare for differences in sex and whether the patient was treated using braces only (no orthopedic correction). Analysis of covariance tested for differences in CRE outcomes and treatment times, with sex and DI included as covariates. A logarithmic transformation of CRE outcomes and treatment times was used because their distributions were skewed. Significance was defined as P < .05.
RESULTS: Compared with conventional finishing, SS patients had significantly lower DI scores, less treatment time (∼7 months), and better CRE scores for first-order alignment-rotation and interproximal space closure; however, second-order root angulation (RA) was inferior.
CONCLUSION: SS patients were treated in less time to better CRE scores for first-order rotation (AR) and interproximal space closure (IC) but on the average, malocclusions were less complex and second order root alignment was inferior, compared with patients finished with manual wire bending.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21261488      PMCID: PMC5161459          DOI: 10.2319/071810-413.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  20 in total

1.  Computer-assisted orthodontic treatment: the SureSmile process.

Authors:  J Mah; R Sachdeva
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity.

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

3.  Clinical assessment of orthodontic outcomes with the peer assessment rating, discrepancy index, objective grading system, and comprehensive clinical assessment.

Authors:  Toru Deguchi; Tadashi Honjo; Tomohiro Fukunaga; Shouichi Miyawaki; W Eugene Roberts; Teruko Takano-Yamamoto
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.650

4.  The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity.

Authors:  S Richmond; W C Shaw; K D O'Brien; I B Buchanan; R Jones; C D Stephens; C T Roberts; M Andrews
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Assessing treatment outcomes for a graduate orthodontics program: follow-up study for the classes of 2001-2003.

Authors:  Kristin Knierim; W Eugene Roberts; James Hartsfield
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.

Authors:  Chukwudi Ochi Onyeaso; Ellen A Begole
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  Treatment complexity index for assessing the relationship of treatment duration and outcomes in a graduate orthodontics clinic.

Authors:  Christy Q Vu; W Eugene Roberts; James K Hartsfield; Susan Ofner
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  Bending properties of superelastic nickel titanium archwires.

Authors:  Franz Martin Sander; Christian Sander; W Eugene Roberts; Franz Günter Sander
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  2008-10

9.  Effect of buccolingual root angulation on the mesiodistal angulation shown on panoramic radiographs.

Authors:  Mariano A Garcia-Figueroa; Donald W Raboud; Ernest W Lam; Giseon Heo; Paul W Major
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Comprehensive clinical evaluation as an outcome assessment for a graduate orthodontics program.

Authors:  Yuliya B Pinskaya; Tsung-Ju Hsieh; W Eugene Roberts; James K Hartsfield
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.650

View more
  16 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.  Reproducibility of digital indirect bonding technique using three-dimensional (3D) models and 3D-printed transfer trays.

Authors:  Maria Eduarda Assad Duarte; Bruno Frazão Gribel; Alice Spitz; Flavia Artese; José Augusto Mendes Miguel
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  Virtual setup: application in orthodontic practice.

Authors:  Leonardo T Camardella; Eduardo Kant C Rothier; Oswaldo V Vilella; Edwin M Ongkosuwito; Karel Hero Breuning
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  How orthodontic records can influence torque choice decisions?

Authors:  Dimitrios Mavreas; Enya Kuppens; Ronald Buyl; Bart Vande Vannet
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  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

6.  Reader's Forum.

Authors:  Hyo-Won Ahn
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 1.372

Review 7.  Dental Robotics: A Disruptive Technology.

Authors:  Paras Ahmad; Mohammad Khursheed Alam; Ali Aldajani; Abdulmajeed Alahmari; Amal Alanazi; Martin Stoddart; Mohammed G Sghaireen
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 3.576

Review 8.  Robotic Applications in Orthodontics: Changing the Face of Contemporary Clinical Care.

Authors:  Samar Adel; Abbas Zaher; Nadia El Harouni; Adith Venugopal; Pratik Premjani; Nikhilesh Vaid
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Do customized orthodontic appliances and vibration devices provide more efficient treatment than conventional methods?

Authors:  Abdullah M Aldrees
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 1.372

10.  Debonding force and shear bond strength of an array of CAD/CAM-based customized orthodontic brackets, placed by indirect bonding- An In Vitro study.

Authors:  Ha-Na Sha; Sung-Hwan Choi; Hyung-Seog Yu; Chung-Ju Hwang; Jung-Yul Cha; Kwang-Mahn Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.