Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system

2005 ◽  
Vol 128 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garret Djeu ◽  
Clarence Shelton ◽  
Anthony Maganzini
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Assessment ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Grading System ◽  
American Board Of Orthodontics ◽  
Objective Grading System

scholarly journals Invisalign and Traditional Orthodontic Treatment Postretention Outcomes Compared Using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System

2007 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 864-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Kuncio ◽  
Anthony Maganzini ◽  
Clarence Shelton ◽  
Katherine Freeman
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Grading System ◽  
American Board Of Orthodontics ◽  
Signed Rank ◽  
Objective Grading System ◽  
Signed Rank Test ◽  
Fixed Appliances ◽  
One Year

Abstract Objective: To compare the postretention dental changes between patients treated with Invisalign and those treated with conventional fixed appliances. Materials and Methods: This is a comparative cohort study using patient records of one orthodontist in New York City. Two groups of patients were identified that differed only in the method of treatment (Invisalign and Braces group). Dental casts and panoramic radiographs were collected and analyzed using the objective grading system (OGS) of the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO). The cases were evaluated immediately after appliance removal (T1) and at a postretention time (T2), three years after appliance removal. All patients had completed active orthodontic treatment and had undergone at least one year of retention. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to evaluate differences in treatment outcomes between the groups for each of the eight categories in the OGS, including four additional subcategories in the alignment category. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to determine the significance of changes within each group from T1 to T2. Results: The change in the total alignment score in the Invisalign group was significantly larger than that for the Braces group. There were significant changes in total alignment and mandibular anterior alignment in both groups. There were significant changes in maxillary anterior alignment in the Invisalign group only. Conclusions: In this sample for this period of observation, patients treated with Invisalign relapsed more than those treated with conventional fixed appliances.

scholarly journals Orthodontic treatment outcomes obtained by application of a finishing protocol

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvaro Carvajal-Flórez ◽  
Diana María Barbosa-Lis ◽  
Oscar Arturo Zapata-Noreña ◽  
Julissa Andrea Marín-Velásquez ◽  
Sergio Andrés Afanador-Bayona
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Graduate Program ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Panoramic Radiographs ◽  
American Board Of Orthodontics ◽  
Objective Grading System

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.

scholarly journals The differences in the objective grading system index before and after dentoskeletal class I ortodontic treatment using the standard Edgewise appliances

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Endah Damaryanti ◽  
Bergman Thahar ◽  
Jono Salim ◽  
Endah Mardiati
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Class I ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Panoramic Radiographs ◽  
American Board Of Orthodontics ◽  
Objective Grading System ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Smile Esthetics ◽  
Dental Casts

Orthodontic treatment has a main purpose to reach balanced functional occlusion and create a harmonic esthetic face. But several studies indicates that orthodontic treatment influence smile esthetics, especially smile arc and buccal corridor. One-third of the treated patients showed a flat smile arc and orthodontic treatment with extraction resulted in excessive buccal corridors. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the difference of the Objective Grading System index, developed by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) and smile aesthetics in patients with Class I dentoskeletal malocclusion before and after orthodontic treatment. Twenty dental casts, panoramic radiographs and grouped pre and post-treatment. Dental casts and panoramic radiographs are scored according to the guidelines of the Objective Grading System. Extra-oral photographs were assessed by researcher using modified Goldstein dentofacial analysis. Result of measurements were evaluated with statistical t-test. Results of the research indicates Objective Grading System index and also score of smile esthetics before and after orthodontic treatment shows difference statistically (for Objective Grading System index P = -1121 > 2.09 and for smile esthetics P = 5.15 > 2.09). But extremely weak relationship was found between Objective Grading System index and Aesthetics smiles (231).

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: Digital vs plaster dental casts

2007 ◽  
Vol 131 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Troy R. Okunami ◽  
Budi Kusnoto ◽  
Ellen BeGole ◽  
Carla A. Evans ◽  
Cyril Sadowsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Grading System ◽  
American Board Of Orthodontics ◽  
Objective Grading System ◽  
Dental Casts
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document