scholarly journals University clinic and private practice treatment outcomes in Class I extraction and nonextraction patients: A comparative study with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System

2016 ◽  
Vol 149 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Mislik ◽  
Dimitrios Konstantonis ◽  
Alexios Katsadouris ◽  
Theodore Eliades
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Private Practice ◽  
Class I ◽  
Grading System ◽  
American Board Of Orthodontics ◽  
Objective 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

scholarly journals Tooth Positioner Effects on Occlusal Contacts and Treatment Outcomes

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1050-1056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yongjong Park ◽  
James Kennedy Hartsfield ◽  
Thomas R. Katona ◽  
W. Eugene Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Control Group ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Consecutive Series ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
First Order ◽  
American Board Of Orthodontics ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Objective Grading System ◽  
Principal Effect ◽  
Better Than

Abstract Objective: To determine if an increase in tooth contacts is the principal effect of tooth positioner wear. Materials and Methods: Patient charts from a consecutive series were reviewed until a sample of 100 cases that used a tooth positioner was obtained. One hundred control cases were randomly selected from patients treated at the same period. Malocclusion severity and finished occlusion were assessed with the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI) and Objective Grading System (OGS) score, respectively. Finish casts for each patient were mounted on a Galleti articulator. Occlusal registrations were obtained with silicone-based impression material from casts fabricated from impressions taken at the time of fixed appliance removal (control) or at the end of the tooth positioner treatment (experimental). The number of the perforations and transparent areas on the occlusal registrations were quantified. Results: There was no significant difference (P = .20) in the number of total occlusal contacts between the two groups. However, the OGS score of the tooth positioner group (16.7) was significantly (P = .0009) better than for the control group (19.9). Conclusions: Tooth positioners were effective in improving the occlusal finish, but the effects were independent of an increase in occlusal contacts. Positioners primarily improved first order alignment by tipping teeth into an improved intercuspation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document