Alvaro Carvajal-Flórez1, Diana María Barbosa-Lis2, Oscar Arturo Zapata-Noreña3, Julissa Andrea Marín-Velásquez4, Sergio Andrés Afanador-Bayona4. 1. Assistant Professor, Universidad de Antioquia, Orthodontics Graduate Program, Medellín, Colombia., Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín , Colombia. 2. Associated Professor, Universidad de Antioquia, Orthodontics and Maxillary orthopedics program, Antioquia, Colombia., Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, Antioquia , Colombia. 3. Full Professor, Universidad de Antioquia, Orthodontics and Maxillary Orthopedics Program, Medellín, Colombia., Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín , Colombia. 4. Resident, Universidad de Antioquia, Orthodontics Graduate Program, School of Dentistry, Antioquia, Colombia., Universidad de Antioquia, Universidad de Antioquia, School of Dentistry, Antioquia , Colombia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of a finishing protocol implemented in patients treated in the Orthodontics graduate program at Universidad de Antioquia. Evaluation was carried out by means of the criteria set by the Objective Grading System (OGS) of the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO). METHODS: Cast models and panoramic radiographs of 34 patients were evaluated. The intervention group (IG) consisted of 17 patients (19.88 ± 4.4 years old) treated under a finishing protocol. This protocol included training in finishing, application of a finishing guide, brackets repositioning and patient's follow-up. Results of the IG were compared to a control group of 17 patients (21.88 ± 7.0 years old) selected by stratified randomization without finishing intervention (CG). RESULTS: The scores for both CG and IG were 38.00 ± 9.0 and 31.41 ± 9.6 (p = 0.048), respectively. The score improved significantly in the IG group, mainly regarding marginal ridges (CG: 5.59 ± 2.2; IG: 3.65 ± 1.8) (p = 0.009) and root angulation (CG: 7.59 ± 2.8; IG: 4.88 ± 2.6) (p = 0.007). Criteria that did not improve, but had the highest scores were: alignment (CG: 6.35 ± 2.7; IG: 6.82 ± 2.8) (p = 0.62) and buccolingual inclination (CG: 3.6 ± 5.88; IG: 5.29 ± 3.9) (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Standardization and implementation of a finishing protocol contributed to improve clinical performance in the Orthodontics graduate program, as expressed by occlusal outcomes. Greater emphasis should be given on the finishing phase to achieve lower scores in the ABO grading system.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of a finishing protocol implemented in patients treated in the Orthodontics graduate program at Universidad de Antioquia. Evaluation was carried out by means of the criteria set by the Objective Grading System (OGS) of the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO). METHODS: Cast models and panoramic radiographs of 34 patients were evaluated. The intervention group (IG) consisted of 17 patients (19.88 ± 4.4 years old) treated under a finishing protocol. This protocol included training in finishing, application of a finishing guide, brackets repositioning and patient's follow-up. Results of the IG were compared to a control group of 17 patients (21.88 ± 7.0 years old) selected by stratified randomization without finishing intervention (CG). RESULTS: The scores for both CG and IG were 38.00 ± 9.0 and 31.41 ± 9.6 (p = 0.048), respectively. The score improved significantly in the IG group, mainly regarding marginal ridges (CG: 5.59 ± 2.2; IG: 3.65 ± 1.8) (p = 0.009) and root angulation (CG: 7.59 ± 2.8; IG: 4.88 ± 2.6) (p = 0.007). Criteria that did not improve, but had the highest scores were: alignment (CG: 6.35 ± 2.7; IG: 6.82 ± 2.8) (p = 0.62) and buccolingual inclination (CG: 3.6 ± 5.88; IG: 5.29 ± 3.9) (p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Standardization and implementation of a finishing protocol contributed to improve clinical performance in the Orthodontics graduate program, as expressed by occlusal outcomes. Greater emphasis should be given on the finishing phase to achieve lower scores in the ABO grading system.
Authors: Linda C Yang-Powers; Cyril Sadowsky; Sheldon Rosenstein; Ellen A BeGole Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 2.650
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