Browsing by Subject "Orthodontics, Corrective -- Standards"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessment of Orthodontic Treatment Results and Comparison between Fixed Lingual and Labial Appliances
    (2001) Pinskaya, Yuliya B.; Roberts, W. Eugene; Baldwin, James J.; Hartsfield, James K., Jr.; Hohlt, William F.; Shanks, James C.
    Interest in objective assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes and in quality control of orthodontic treatment is increasing. In recent years, the evaluation of orthodontic treatment results has been carried out with the help of various indices or different rating systems. No published studies have used the ABO Objective Grading System for evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcomes for all cases in the clinical series. There are also very few studies, conducted mainly in Europe, that have assessed treatment results in postgraduate orthodontic clinics. There is one known study comparing treatment results between fixed lingual and labial appliances. The objectives of the present study were: first, to assess treatment outcomes in the IUSD Graduate Orthodontic Clinic for three years (1998, 1999, and 2000); and second, to compare treatment results achieved with the use of fixed lingual and labial appliances. Pre and posttreatment records (study casts, panoramic and lateral cephalometric radiographs, and extraoral and intraoral photographs) of 521 patients treated in the IUSD Graduate Orthodontic Clinic were evaluated. Treatment outcomes were assessed for a 3-year period using the ABO Grading System and IUSD Comprehensive Clinical Assessment Criteria. Statistically significant differences were found for the majority of the evaluation criteria between the selected three years. The overall quality of finished cases decreased from 1998 to 2000. This trend may reflect preferential finishing of the cases that were going well and transferring all the other cases. No assumptions regarding the overall performance of the Clinic should be made based on the results of this study. It should be remembered that these three years were selected for a particular reason. In the fall of 1997, a clinical grading program was initiated. All active cases (1997-98 academic year) were to be finished within three years. The year 2000 was the deadline to finish all active long treatment time cases. Most of the cases that were in treatment for a long time were progressing poorly and were not finally finished until 2000. This group of difficult cases contributed to the decreased quality of the finished cases and longer treatment time during the year 2000 compared to 1998 and 1999. It is anticipated that treatment outcomes will improve in 2001 since the backlog o flong treatment time cases has been cleared. The evaluation of this three-year period (1998-2000) was the baseline evaluation for comparison of finished cases for subsequent years. When comparing treatment results between fixed lingual and labial appliances, significant differences were found for only 4 of 24 parameters. These outcome differences were, mainly, due to the inherent characteristics of the lingual appliance rather than to the treatment approach of the supervising instructor. Even though statistically significant differences were found for a few parameters between two types of appliances, they did not indicate the advantages of one appliance over the other. The present study suggests that the treatment results can be as good with lingual as with labial appliances. This study also has established a baseline for comparison of clinical outcomes in the IUSD Orthodontic Clinic for subsequent years.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessment of Orthodontic Treatment Results: Two-Phase Treatment (Early Intervention) vs. One-Phase Treatment (Late Intervention)
    (2003) Hsieh, Tsung-Ju; Roberts, W. Eugene; Baldwin, James J.; Hohlt, William F.; Kowolik, Michael J.; Shanks, James C.
    There is still a lack of consensus among orthodontists regarding the degree of success of different treatment modalities applied during the early to late mixed dentition stages. The purpose of this study was to compare the treatment outcome of one-phase with two-phase treatment with objective evaluation criteria. The null hypothesis is that there is no difference in the treatment quality between early and late treatment groups, among cases finished in year 1998, 1999 and 2000 or among three Angle's Classes or between extraction and non-extraction cases. Pre-treatment and post-treatment records of all patients treated in the orthodontic clinic at the Indiana University School of Dentistry who had their treatment completed during the three years (1998, 1999, 2000) were evaluated by American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) objective grading system and clinical assessment criteria developed in the IUSD orthodontic section. The results of the study showed that there were 512 cases finished in these 3 years. Among these 512 cases the treatment was most often started at age 12, followed by age 13. Poor occlusal contact and improper third order of molars, longer treatment time, and poor dentition were major contributors that made the treatment quality poor. Early debond tended to occur more often with boys than girls. Generally Angle's Class I cases and the cases finished in year 1998 had better treatment results. Although the early treatment group had longer treatment time than late treatment group, the final treatment quality was comparable with that of the late treatment group.