scholarly journals Anterior tooth alignment: A comparison of orthodontic retention regimens 5 years posttreatment

2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ragnar Bjering ◽  
Kari Birkeland ◽  
Vaska Vandevska-Radunovic
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Anterior Tooth ◽  
Significant Deterioration ◽  
Par Index ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Posttreatment Period ◽  
Component Scores ◽  
Time Point

ABSTRACT Objective:  To assess orthodontic treatment outcome at debonding and at 3 and 5 years after orthodontic treatment and to investigate the influence of different retention protocols on anterior tooth alignment. Materials and Methods:  Using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index, 169 patients (74 boys, 95 girls) were analyzed at four stages: pretreatment (T0), posttreatment (T1), 3 years posttreatment (T3), and 5 years posttreatment (T5). The PAR anterior component scores (ACSs) were compared between groups with different retention protocols. In the maxilla, protocols were removable retainer until T3 (MAX1), removable and fixed retainer until T3 (MAX2), and removable retainer until T3 and fixed retainer until T5 (MAX3). In the mandible, protocols were no retainer (MAND1), fixed 3-3 retainer until T3 (MAND2), and fixed 3-3 retainer until T5 (MAND3). Results:  Mean weighted improvement in PAR score was 88.3% at T1, 86.4% at T3, and 82.1% at T5. The ACS for the maxilla showed no significant differences between the retention protocols at any time point. In the mandible, the group without retention showed a gradual but not significant deterioration in ACS throughout the posttreatment period. At T5 there was a significant difference in ACS between the group that had the retainer removed at T3 and the group that kept the retainer. Conclusion:  The 5-year treatment outcome, as measured by the PAR Index, was good. Stability of the maxillary anterior alignment 5 years posttreatment did not appear to be influenced by choice of retention protocol. Mandibular anterior alignment was significantly better for the group using a fixed retainer compared with the group where the retainer was removed 3 years posttreatment.

scholarly journals Evaluation of treatment changes produced by different orthodontic treatment modalities using Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
SeenaNaik Eslavath ◽  
ThirumalNaik Mood ◽  
Manjunath Chekka ◽  
Kalyan SrinivasaAravind Narahari ◽  
Sreelaxmi Natta
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Par Index ◽  
Treatment Changes ◽  
Peer Assessment Rating

scholarly journals Orthodontic Treatment and Healthcare Goals: Evaluation of Multibrackets Treatment Results Using PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating)

Healthcare ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 473
Author(s):  
Maria Francesca Sfondrini ◽  
Paolo Zampetti ◽  
Giulia Luscher ◽  
Paola Gandini ◽  
José Luís Gandía-Franco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
High Standard ◽  
Treatment Method ◽  
Treatment Quality ◽  
Par Index ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
High Treatment ◽  
Peer Assessment Rating

Background: The evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcomes using an objective method is important in order to maintain high treatment quality and final healthcare of patients. It allows professionals and university students to raise the level of the therapy. The aim of this study was to assess the orthodontic treatment outcomes in an Italian postgraduate School of Orthodontics using Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index. Methods: A sample of 50 patients treated in a postgraduate program was randomly selected. PAR index was used to assess pre-treatment and post-treatment study casts by two different examiners. The influence of different variables such as gender, treatment method, and need for extraction was statistically analyzed. Results: The average numerical reduction of PAR between the beginning and the end of the treatment was 18.74 (CI 95% 16.53–20.95), while the percentage reduction was 94.8% (CI 95% 91.91–97.68). All cases improved: 8% of patients resulted in the improved category, while 92% of them were in the greatly improved group. Conclusions: According to PAR index, the results showed that patients received a high-standard therapy. None of the factors studied influenced significantly the treatment outcomes.

scholarly journals Digital Models as an Alternative to Plaster Casts in Assessment of Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chung-Yan Vanessa Leung ◽  
Yanqi Yang ◽  
Chongshan Liao ◽  
Urban Hägg ◽  
Ricky Wing Kit Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Plaster Cast ◽  
Digital Models ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Plaster Model ◽  
Plaster Casts

Objective. This study aimed to compare the use of digital models and plaster casts in assessing the improvement in occlusion following orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods. Digital models and plaster casts of 39 consecutive patients at pre- and posttreatment stages were obtained and assessed using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and the Index of Complexity and Treatment Need (ICON). PAR and ICON scores were compared at individual and group levels. Categorization of improvement level was compared using Kappa (κ) statistics. Results. There was no significant difference in neither PAR scores (p > 0.05) nor ICON scores (p > 0.05) between digital and plaster cast assessments. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) values for changes in PAR and ICON scores were excellent (ICC > 0.80). Agreement of ratings of occlusal improvement level between digital and plaster model assessments was 0.83 (κ) for PAR and 0.59 (κ) for ICON, respectively. Conclusion. The study supported the use of digital models as an alternative to plaster casts when assessing changes in occlusion at the ‘individual patient’ level using ICON or PAR. However, it could not fully support digital models as an alternate to plaster casts at ‘the group level’ (as in the case of clinical audit/research).

scholarly journals Factors influencing orthodontic treatment outcome in South East Wales and implications for service commissioning

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-322
Author(s):  
Stacey Quach ◽  
Hashmat Popat ◽  
Anup Karki ◽  
Rebecca Playle ◽  
Stephen Richmond
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Dental Health ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Dental Services ◽  
Need For Treatment ◽  
Good Treatment Outcome ◽  
Fixed Appliances ◽  
Treatment Use

Aim: To determine factors that may influence the outcome of orthodontic treatment undertaken in General Dental Services/Personal Dental Services in South East Wales. Design and setting: A retrospective study of a requested 20 consecutively treated cases (for the year 2014–2015) provided by 26 performers in South East Wales. Method: Performer and patient information was obtained by use of a questionnaire and FP17OW forms, respectively. A calibrated investigator recorded the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN), Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON) on start- and end-study models for each case. Descriptive and regression analyses were undertaken to identify any predictive factors of a good treatment outcome. Results: Two respondents completed < 20 cases, so all of their cases were assessed. A total of 495 cases were assessed. The overall achieved mean end-PAR score of 5 is collectively a good occlusal outcome. Predictive factors of a good quality of occlusal outcome (end-PAR score being ⩽ 5) were: dual arch treatment; use of functional with fixed appliances; treatment undertaken in non-corporate practices; and treatment undertaken by registered specialists ( P < 0.001). Predictive factors for occlusal improvement (change in PAR score) were: IOTN aesthetic component (AC); IOTN dental health component (DHC) (1–3 or 4–5); and number of arches treated and malocclusion type ( P < 0.001). Conclusions: Dual arch fixed appliances undertaken by orthodontic specialists in non-corporate environments produced the highest quality orthodontic outcomes. Those who have the highest need for treatment according to IOTN DHC and AC benefit most in terms of improvement achieved in PAR score.

scholarly journals Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases

2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toru Deguchi ◽  
Fumie Terao ◽  
Tomo Aonuma ◽  
Tomoki Kataoka ◽  
Yasuyo Sugawara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Root Resorption ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Grading System ◽  
Cephalometric Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Objective Grading System ◽  
Peer Assessment Rating

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.

Occlusal Outcome of Orthodontic Treatment for Patients With Complete Cleft Lip and Palate

2021 ◽  
pp. 105566562199611
Author(s):  
Daniel Stonehouse-Smith ◽  
Aida N.A. Abd Rahman ◽  
Jeanette Mooney ◽  
Haydn Bellardie
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Treatment Time ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Retrospective Assessment ◽  
Par Index

Aim: To assess occlusal outcomes of orthodontic treatment for patients with complete cleft lip and palate. Design: Retrospective assessment using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Setting: Consecutive patients treated by one consultant orthodontist at a tertiary care cleft center. Participants: One hundred twenty-seven patients with either complete unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) or bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) consecutively treated with fixed appliances. Intervention: Fixed orthodontic appliance treatment and orthognathic surgery when required. Outcomes: The PAR index assessment was carried out by a calibrated-independent assessor. Treatment duration, the number of patient visits, and data on dental anomalies were drawn from patient records and radiographs. Results: One hundred two patients’ study models were assessed after exclusions. Mean start PAR score for UCLP (n = 71) was 43.9 (95% CI, 41.2-46.6, SD 11.5), with a mean score reduction of 84.3% (95% CI, 81.9-86.7, SD 10.1). The UCLP mean treatment time was 23.7 months with 20.1 appointments. Mean start PAR score for BCLP (n = 31) was 43.4 (95% CI, 39.2-47.6, SD 11.4), with a mean score reduction of 80.9% (95% CI, 76.3-85.5, SD 12.5). The BCLP mean treatment time was 27.8 months with 20.5 appointments. Conclusion: These results compare well with other outcome reports, including those for patients without a cleft, and reflect the standard of care provided by an experienced cleft orthodontist. As with high-volume surgeons, orthodontic treatment for this high need group is favorable when provided by a high-volume orthodontist. These findings may be used for comparative audit with similar units providing cleft care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document