Consistency of orthodontic treatment planning decisions

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Lee ◽  
T. MacFarlane ◽  
K. O'Brien
2007 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-741 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Scott Conley ◽  
Scott B. Boyd ◽  
Harry L. Legan ◽  
Christopher C. Jernigan ◽  
Craig Starling ◽  
...  

Abstract An impacted or missing permanent tooth can add significant complications to an otherwise straightforward case. When multiple impacted teeth are present, the case complexity increases further. Developing a treatment sequence, determining appropriate anchorage, and planning and executing sound biomechanics can be a challenge. The following case report illustrates a patient reportedly diagnosed with mild scleroderma as an adolescent. He presented for orthodontic treatment as an adult with multiple retained primary teeth and multiple impacted teeth. Diagnosis, treatment planning, and various methods of managing guided eruption of impacted teeth will be discussed. Following orthodontic treatment that required extraction of multiple primary and permanent teeth as well as exposure and ligation of multiple permanent teeth by an oral surgeon, the patient finished with a significantly improved functional and esthetic result.


2008 ◽  
Vol 133 (5) ◽  
pp. 640.e1-640.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Alves Garcia Silva ◽  
Ulrich Wolf ◽  
Frank Heinicke ◽  
Axel Bumann ◽  
Heiko Visser ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 240-244
Author(s):  
Mohamed Hania ◽  
Mohammad Owaise Sharif

This case report describes a rare presentation of an osteoma in the maxillary sinus picked up from an incidental finding on an orthopantomogram that was obtained to inform orthodontic treatment. While orthodontists principally use this radiograph to assess the developing dentition, aid treatment planning and monitor treatment, several peripheral anatomical sites are evident on this radiograph. We review the literature in relation to osteomas presenting in the craniofacial area along with its management. We provide examples of common radiopaque lesions along with their radiographic features that dental healthcare clinicians may encounter.


1996 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 359-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. A. Parfitt ◽  
W. P. Rock

A group of 30 general dental practitioners were asked to plan treatment for a series of 10 Class II division 1 malocclusions of graded severity. The results were assessed against a gold standard provided by three consultants. Only 14 per cent of practitioner treatment plans agreed with the gold standard and agreement was worst for those cases requiring the use of headgear. When consultants and General Dental Practitioners (GDPs) were asked whether a case should be referred for advice before the GDP began treatment, 64 per cent of GDP decisions agreed with those of the consultants. On 13 per cent of occasions, however, the GDP would have initiated incorrect treatment without seeking consultant advice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 296-302
Author(s):  
Irina Stupar ◽  
Enver Yetkiner ◽  
Daniel Wiedemeier ◽  
Thomas Attin ◽  
Rengin Attin

Background:Lateral Cephalometric Radiographs (LCR) are a common decision-making aid in orthodontic treatment planning and are routinely used in clinical practice. The aim of this present study was to test the null hypothesis that LCR evaluation does not alter specific components of orthodontic treatment planning in Class II patients.Materials and Methods:Records of 75 patients, who had been treated at the Department of Orthodontics, Centre of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich comprised the study material. Inclusion criteria were: (1) adolescents between the age of 12-15, (2) permanent dentition with Class II buccal segment relationship (3) absence of craniofacial and dento-alveolar malformations. Fifteen orthodontists from the dental faculties of Istanbul University, Istanbul and Ege University, Izmir filled out Likert-type linear scale questionnaires without knowing that they would repeat the same procedure with and without LCRs at two different time points. Equivalence and clinical relevance were assessed using (%95 CI) Wilcoxon signed rank tests.Results:Extraction decision did not differ between groups (p=0.68). Preference of functional appliance use (p=0.006) and inter-maxillary fixed functional appliance (p=0.043) was different among groups.Conclusion:LCR evaluation has minor influence on treatment planning procedure of Class II patients. It might be beneficial to consider its prescription not in a routine manner but as a supplementary tool considering possible reduction of radiation exposure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document