This article presents the demographic data for 91 doctors and 347 adult AOB patients, as well as the practitioners' self-reported treatment preferences.

Introduction: Anterior openbite (AOB) continues to be a challenging malocclusion for orthodontists to treat and retain long-term. There are many orthodontic treatment modalities used to treat AOB in adult patients, but there is no consensus on which modalities are most successful. This study aims to identify the overall success rate of AOB orthodontic treatment in the adult population across the United States, as well as factors that influence treatment success. Methods: Practitioners and their adult AOB patients were recruited through the National Dental PBRN. Patient dentofacial and demographic characteristics, practitioner demographic and practice characteristics, and factors relating to orthodontic treatment were reported. Treatment success was determined from post-treatment lateral cephalometric films and intraoral frontal photos. Treatment was categorized into four main groups: aligners, fixed appliances, TADs and orthognathic surgery. Extractions were also evaluated. Univariate and multivariate models were used to evaluate how treatment success varies with treatment modality, pre-treatment dentofacial characteristics, and patient and practitioner demographic and practice characteristics. Results: End of active treatment data was collected from 84 practitioners and 254 patients. Eighty four percent of patients finished with positive vertical overlap of all incisors and 93% with positive overbite on the post-treatment lateral cephalogram. While there were no statistically significant differences in success rates between the treatment groups, patients treated with orthognathic surgery had an increased odds for success when compared to those treated with fixed appliances only. Treatment success was also associated with academic practice setting, pre-treatment IMPA £90°, no to mild pre-treatment crowding, and treatment duration < 30 months. Conclusion: The success of orthodontic treatment in adult AOB patients who participated in this study was very high. While there was a range of success for the major treatment modalities, orthognathic surgery was the only treatment modality that reached statistically significance. There were some pre-treatment dentofacial characteristics and treatment factors associated with successful closure of AOB. I would like thank the University of Washington Department of Orthodontics and the University of Washington Orthodontic Alumni Association for this wonderful opportunity and academically fulfilling experience. Thank you to my research committee members, Greg Huang, Geoffrey Greenlee, and Andrea Burke, for your mentorship and guidance. I would also like to give a special thank you to my research partner, Sam Finkleman. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation for my family and friends for all their support.

No abstract

BackgroundClear aligner therapy has evolved considerably since its introduction 20 years ago. Clinicians have become more experienced with aligner therapy, but little is known about the types of malocclusions that clinicians currently treat with aligners. Similarly, it is not known if viewing digital vs plaster models has any impact on the treatment planning process for aligners. The aim of this study was to assess which types of malocclusions are recommended for treatment with clear aligners, and also to determine if recommendations for aligner treatment differed when using digital versus plaster models.MethodsSixteen orthodontists treatment planned 20 cases at two time points with either the same or different model formats (digital versus plaster). As part of the treatment planning process, they were asked whether each patient was a good candidate for Invisalign® treatment, and if not, why. Generalized estimating equations regression (GEE), the permutation test, and a logistic regression model with GEE were used to analyze the data.ResultsNo significant difference was found between the Invisalign® choices in the digital model group and those in the plaster model group at T1 (p = 0.59). There was no significant difference between the agreement rate of the different formats group and that of the same format group (p = 0.97). Cases with extractions had less Invisalign® recommendations (15%) compared to cases with no extractions (55%) (p = 0.0015). Cases with surgery had less Invisalign® recommendations (29%) compared to cases with no surgery (57%) (p = 0.035).ConclusionsIn this study, viewing orthodontic records with digital versus plaster models did not influence decisions about Invisalign® recommendations. Additionally, the orthodontists in this study tended to not recommend Invisalign® for extraction cases, surgical cases, or difficult cases.