Literature DB >> 24694016

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

Hatice Akinci Cansunar1, Tancan Uysal.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between pretreatment case complexity and orthodontic treatment outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The total sample contained 1693 cases (853 females and 840 males, mean age  =  16.3 years) from the archives of postgraduate orthodontic clinics. The complexity of each case was evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI), and orthodontic clinical outcomes were evaluated using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS). Only one investigator evaluated all cases. Multivariate analysis of variance, correlation analysis, and multiple variable regression analysis were used for statistical evaluation (P < .05 as significant).
RESULTS: The mean total DI score was 16.2, and the mean total OGS score was 18. No significant correlation was found between the total DI and the total OGS scores. However, pretreatment overbite, lateral open bite, crowding, buccal posterior crossbite, and other components affected the total OGS score significantly. The highest percentage of passing OGS values was found for cases of medium-level complexity.
CONCLUSION: This retrospective study of university clinical records showed that the posttreatment clinical outcomes were significantly affected from pretreatment case complexity. Posttreatment alignment was affected significantly from pretreatment buccal posterior crossbite and cephalometric values. Similarly, posttreatment buccolingual inclination was affected from pretreatment anterior open bite, occlusion, and other factors. Occlusal contacts were affected significantly from pretreatment lingual posterior crossbite and other factors. In addition, we determined that posttreatment root angulations were affected significantly from pretreatment crowding values.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ABO; Case complexity; Clinical outcomes; Orthodontics

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24694016      PMCID: PMC8638490          DOI: 10.2319/010114-001.1

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


  14 in total

1.  American Board of Orthodontics: past, present, and future.

Authors:  J L Vaden; V G Kokich
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  The American Board of Orthodontics and specialty certification: the first 50 years.

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:  2004-07       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  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

4.  Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

Authors:  Troy R Okunami; Budi Kusnoto; Ellen BeGole; Carla A Evans; Cyril Sadowsky; Shahrbanoo Fadavi
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  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

6.  The association of malocclusion complexity and orthodontic treatment outcomes.

Authors:  Ryan M Pulfer; Carl T Drake; Gerardo Maupome; George J Eckert; W Eugene Roberts
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics.

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

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

Authors:  Charee L Campbell; W Eugene Roberts; James K Hartsfield; Rong Qi
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  Factors associated with orthodontic patient compliance with intraoral elastic and headgear wear.

Authors:  R J Egolf; E A BeGole; H S Upshaw
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 2.650

10.  Clinical outcomes of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot using the ABO objective grading system.

Authors:  David A Detterline; Serkis C Isikbay; Edward J Brizendine; Katherine S Kula
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.079

View more
  8 in total

1.  Outcome assessment of orthodontic clear aligner vs fixed appliance treatment in a teenage population with mild malocclusions.

Authors:  Alissa F Borda; Judah S Garfinkle; David A Covell; Mansen Wang; Larry Doyle; Christine M Sedgley
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-07-01       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  Outcomes of different Class II treatments : Comparisons using the American Board of Orthodontics Model Grading System.

Authors:  Hatice Akinci Cansunar; Tancan Uysal
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Differences in finished case quality between Invisalign and traditional fixed appliances.

Authors:  Eric Lin; Katie Julien; Matthew Kesterke; Peter H Buschang
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-03-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  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

5.  Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems : Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria.

Authors:  Fadi Ata-Ali; Javier Ata-Ali; Alicia Lanuza-Garcia; Marcela Ferrer-Molina; Maria Melo; Eliseo Plasencia
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 1.938

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.  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

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.