Fadi Ata-Ali1, Javier Ata-Ali2,3, Alicia Lanuza-Garcia4,5, Marcela Ferrer-Molina4,5, Maria Melo6,5, Eliseo Plasencia4,5. 1. Private practice, Valencia, Spain. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences. Department of Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Valencia, Valencia, Spain. javiataali@hotmail.com. 3. Public Dental Health Service, Department of the Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 46026, Valencia, Spain. javiataali@hotmail.com. 4. School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain. 5. Valencia University Medical and Dental School, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain. 6. Faculty of Health Sciences. Department of Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with a lingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with a labial appliance (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). METHODS: A total of 72 patients were retrospectively analyzed. 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 (cast-radiograph evaluation: C‑R Eval). RESULTS: The mean total ABO C‑R Eval score was 16 ± 9.1 in the labial appliance group and 12.7 ± 5.4 in lingual appliance group (p = 0.152). The mean total ABO-DI scores were 16.3 ± 7.3 and 15.4 ± 6.6 in the labial and lingual appliance groups, respectively (p = 0.445). A significant correlation was observed between the total DI and total C‑R Eval scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this particular study and in the hands of two experienced orthodontists, no differences in the finishing quality of orthodontic treatments using the lingual technique or the buccal appliance technique were found. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary in order to generalize these results.
PURPOSE: To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with a lingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with a labial appliance (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). METHODS: A total of 72 patients were retrospectively analyzed. 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 (cast-radiograph evaluation: C‑R Eval). RESULTS: The mean total ABO C‑R Eval score was 16 ± 9.1 in the labial appliance group and 12.7 ± 5.4 in lingual appliance group (p = 0.152). The mean total ABO-DI scores were 16.3 ± 7.3 and 15.4 ± 6.6 in the labial and lingual appliance groups, respectively (p = 0.445). A significant correlation was observed between the total DI and total C‑R Eval scores. CONCLUSIONS: In this particular study and in the hands of two experienced orthodontists, no differences in the finishing quality of orthodontic treatments using the lingual technique or the buccal appliance technique were found. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary in order to generalize these results.
Authors: Fadi Ata-Ali; Javier Ata-Ali; Marcela Ferrer-Molina; Teresa Cobo; Felix De Carlos; Juan Cobo Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Laura D Parrish; W Eugene Roberts; Gerardo Maupome; Kelton T Stewart; Robert W Bandy; Katherine S Kula Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.079