Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in nonextraction, 2 maxillary premolar extraction, and 4 premolar extraction protocols with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system

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.

Download Full-text

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

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/100106-398.1 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 77 (5) ◽

pp. 864-869 ◽

Cited By ~ 52

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.

Download Full-text

Orthodontic treatment outcomes obtained by application of a finishing protocol

Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.088-094.oar ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 21 (2) ◽

pp. 88-94 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text