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

2005 ◽  
Vol 127 (4) ◽  
pp. 434-443 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Deguchi ◽  
Tadashi Honjo ◽  
Tomohiro Fukunaga ◽  
Shouichi Miyawaki ◽  
W. Eugene Roberts ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Deguchi ◽  
Fumie Terao ◽  
Tomo Aonuma ◽  
Tomoki Kataoka ◽  
Yasuyo Sugawara ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objective:  To validate our hypothesis that there would be significant differences in treatment outcomes, including cephalometric values, degree of root resorption, occlusal indices, and functional aspect, between cases treated with labial and lingual appliances. Materials and Methods:  Twenty-four consecutively treated Class II cases with extractions and lingual appliance were compared with 25 matched cases treated with extraction and labial appliance. Orthodontic treatment outcomes were evaluated by cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and an objective grading system (OGS). Additionally, functional analysis was also performed in both groups after orthodontic treatment. Statistical comparison was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test within the groups, and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare between the labial and lingual groups. Results:  The only significant difference between the groups was that the interincisal angle was larger in the lingual group than in the labial group. OGS evaluation showed that control over root angulation was significantly worse in the lingual group than in the labial group. There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of root resorption or in functional evaluation. Conclusions:  Generally, lingual appliances offer comparable treatment results to those obtained with labial appliances. However, care should be taken with lingual appliances because they are more prone to produce uprighted incisors and root angulation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 54-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nita Viwattanatipa ◽  
Weerawat Buapuean ◽  
Chulaluk Komoltri

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siqi Liu ◽  
Heesoo Oh ◽  
David William Chambers ◽  
Tianmin Xu ◽  
Sheldon Baumrind

1994 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Turbill ◽  
Stephen Richmond ◽  
Mary Andrews

The PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) Index was compared to the grading system currently in use for completed orthodontic cases at the Dental Practice Board of England and Wales. Forty completed cases were graded by the two systems, which were compared for their intra- and inter-examiner reliability, as well as for their agreement and disparity in judging outcomes of cases. The implications of the results on the monitoring of standards in the General Dental Services are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document