scholarly journals Assessment of orthodontic treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index among patients with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
SatinderP Singh ◽  
Komil Tintodana ◽  
Sanjeev Verma ◽  
Vinay Kumar ◽  
RajK Verma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Par Index ◽  
Peer Assessment Rating

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Postorthodontic Changes in the Treatment of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Using the PAR Index

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-34
Author(s):  
Kunakorn Trimetsuntorn ◽  
Amornrut Manosudprasit ◽  
Aggasit Manosudprasit ◽  
Natthawee Phaoseree ◽  
Araya Pisek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Cleft Lip And Palate ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
P Values ◽  
Retention Period ◽  
Par Index ◽  
Dental Model

Objective: To evaluate dental changes in cleft patients after undergoing orthodontic treatment for at least 2 years. Hypothesis: The dental change would decline significantly after 2 years of completing orthodontic treatment. Design: This is a retrospective study. Patient: Eighteen repaired cleft lip and palate patients from the Faculty of Dentistry, KhonKaen University, Thailand, participated in this study. Mean Outcome Measures: A dental model with before treatment (T0), completed treatment (T1), and retention period (T2) data was analyzed using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. Result: The results showed that the PAR score improved enormously after treatment; from T0 to T1, it was 34.00 ± 10.01 to 4.67 ± 2.47, and there was a reversion in the retention period. There was statistical significance between T0, T1, and T2, with P values <.001, .005, and <.001 when comparing T0 with T1, T1 with T2, and T0 with T2, respectively. Conclusion: Occlusion in cleft lip and palate patients changed from the time of completing treatment to the final results after the retention period. To sustain satisfactory results, orthodontists should plan carefully for the retention period before performing the treatment.

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 Assessment of the Removable Orthodontic Treatment Outcome Using Peer Assessment Rating Index

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-108
Author(s):  
Mohammed Saleh ◽  
Omar Chawshli ◽  
Rebin Mohammed Amin
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Outcome ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Peer Assessment Rating Index ◽  
Peer Assessment Rating

Evaluation of the peer assessment rating (PAR) index as an index of orthodontic treatment need

2002 ◽  
Vol 122 (5) ◽  
pp. 463-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen R. Firestone ◽  
F.Michael Beck ◽  
Frank M. Beglin ◽  
Katherine W.L. Vig
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Treatment Need ◽  
Par Index ◽  
Peer Assessment Rating

scholarly journals Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index as an Alternative for Orthodontic Treatment Need Decision in Relation to Angle Classification

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Lale Taner ◽  
◽  
Fatma Deniz Uzuner ◽  
Yagmur Caylak ◽  
Zeynep Gencturk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Peer Assessment ◽  
Treatment Need ◽  
Par Index ◽  
Peer Assessment Rating
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document