Retrospektive Bewertung des Therapieerfolgs bei kieferorthop�discher Behandlung von Erwachsenen

Abstract

The aim of this study was the retrospective evaluation of the outcome of orthodontic treatment in consecutively treated adult patients. Of 147 adult patients, it was possible to evaluate the records of 88 patients (57 female, 31 male) before (T1) and after treatment (T2), and of 20 of these patients 3.3 years on average after completion of the retention phase (T3). During treatment planning, a nearly "ideal" result was considered attainable (ideal group) for 46 patients, and a "compromise" result (compromise group) was seen as realistic for 42. The assessment was made using the PAR (Peer Assessment Rating) index and the Aesthetic Component (AC) and Dental Health Components (DHC) of the IOTN (Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need). Average length of treatment in the ideal group was 2.4 years, i.e. nearly twice as long as in the compromise group. The PAR score was reduced by an average of 56% (T2); the reduction in the ideal group was 73%, and in the compromise group 37%. Among the 20 patients for whom at least 6 months had elapsed since completion of the retention phase, a statistically significant relapse between T2 and T3 was observed. The evaluation of overjet and overbite and, in the ideal group, of the midline and maxillary front teeth were primarily responsible for the worsening of the PAR scores between T2 and T3. According to the AC, 53 patients (60%) had moderate to definite treatment needs at the beginning of treatment. Following completion of active treatment, 69 patients (78%) no longer demonstrated treatment indications for aesthetic or psychosocial reasons. Based on the DHC, 88% of the patients were in definite or moderate need of treatment (T1); in contrast, treatment was no longer indicated in 84% at T2. In general, a marked improvement of the examined morphological parameters was observed.

Orthodontic treatment need in a Spanish young adult population

“…(16) and Hassan (21) encountered higher values – treatment needs of 48.8% and 71.6% respectively but their samples present an important selection bias in that they were made up of patients visiting orthodontics units for treatment. Equally, Riedmann and Berg (25) found a 60.2% treatment need, but their sample was composed of 88 orthodontic patients. Tang and So (13) and So and Tang (26), who respectively obtained 54.2% and 53% treatment needs, also display evident sample selection bias.…”

Development of a treatment outcome standard as a result of a clinical audit of the outcome of fixed appliance therapy undertaken by hospital-based consultant orthodontists in the UK.

“…[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] The paper of greatest relevance to the current audit is that by O'Brien et al in 1993, 5 in which the authors looked at 17 hospital departments and investigated some 1,392 cases treated with fixed appliances. They examined all cases, including those in which the appliances were removed early, and included all grades of operator.…”

Overjet and Overbite Influence on Cyclic Masticatory Movements: A CT Study

“…Different normal ranges of linear values for OJ and OB are defined [22–28] depending on their impact on the different physiological aspects of the stomatognathic system (Table 1). Ioannidou et al [23], Lowe et al [29], and Riedman and Berg [30] described an interdependence between OJ and OB and craniofacial morphology. Kessler [31] and Silness and Roynstrand [32] showed that the OJ/OB relationship affects periodontal conditions.…”