Literature DB >> 23992811

Validation of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System for assessing the treatment outcomes of Chinese patients.

Guang-Ying Song1, Sheldon Baumrind, Zhi-He Zhao, Yin Ding, Yu-Xing Bai, Lin Wang, Hong He, Gang Shen, Wei-Ran Li, Wei-Zi Wu, Chong Ren, Xuan-Rong Weng, Zhi Geng, Tian-Min Xu.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Orthodontics in China has developed rapidly, but there is no standard index of treatment outcomes. We assessed the validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) for the classification of treatment outcomes in Chinese patients.
METHODS: We randomly selected 108 patients who completed treatment between July 2005 and September 2008 in 6 orthodontic treatment centers across China. Sixty-nine experienced Chinese orthodontists made subjective assessments of the end-of-treatment casts for each patient. Three examiners then used the ABO-OGS to measure the casts. Pearson correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were conducted to evaluate the correspondence between the ABO-OGS cast measurements and the orthodontists' subjective assessments.
RESULTS: The average subjective grading scores were highly correlated with the ABO-OGS scores (r = 0.7042). Four of the 7 study cast components of the ABO-OGS score-occlusal relationship, overjet, interproximal contact, and alignment-were statistically significantly correlated with the judges' subjective assessments. Together, these 4 accounted for 58% of the variability in the average subjective grading scores. The ABO-OGS cutoff score for cases that the judges deemed satisfactory was 16 points; the corresponding cutoff score for cases that the judges considered acceptable was 21 points.
CONCLUSIONS: The ABO-OGS is a valid index for the assessment of treatment outcomes in Chinese patients. By comparing the objective scores on this modification of the ABO-OGS with the mean subjective assessment of a panel of highly qualified Chinese orthodontists, a cutoff point for satisfactory treatment outcome was defined as 16 points or fewer, with scores of 16 to 21 points denoting less than satisfactory but still acceptable treatment. Cases that scored greater than 21 points were considered unacceptable.
Copyright © 2013 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23992811     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.018

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


  4 in total

1.  Curative effect evaluation by using Andrews' six elements for completed orthodontic treatment cases.

Authors:  Chao-Feng Liu; Yan-Hua Xu; Yan Liu
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2021-02-01

2.  Machine Learning-Based Evaluation on Craniodentofacial Morphological Harmony of Patients After Orthodontic Treatment.

Authors:  Xin Wang; Xiaoke Zhao; Guangying Song; Jianwei Niu; Tianmin Xu
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-05-09       Impact factor: 4.755

3.  Effectiveness of modifications to preadjusted appliance prescriptions based on racial dental characteristics assessed by the ABO Cast-Radiograph Evaluation: A propensity score matching study.

Authors:  Yanhao Chu; Lingling Zhang; Yatao Zhao; Fang Yi; Yanqin Lu
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 2.984

4.  The effect of e-learning on the quality of orthodontic appliances.

Authors:  Stephanie Schorn-Borgmann; Carsten Lippold; Dirk Wiechmann; Thomas Stamm
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2015-08-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.