University clinic and private practice treatment outcomes in Class I extraction and nonextraction patients: A comparative study with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to compare treatment outcomes in university vs private practice settings with Class I patients using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. METHODS A parent sample of 580 Class I patients treated with and without extractions of 4 first premolars was subjected to discriminant analysis to identify a borderline spectrum of 66 patients regarding the extraction modality. Of these patients, 34 were treated in private orthodontic practices, and 32 were treated in a university graduate orthodontic clinic. The treatment outcomes were evaluated using the 8 variables of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. RESULTS The total scores ranged from 10 to 47 (mean, 25.44; SD, 9.8) for the university group and from 14 to 45 (mean, 25.94; SD, 7.7) for the private practice group. The university group achieved better scores for the variables of buccolingual inclination (mean difference, 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59, 3.98; P = 0.01) and marginal ridges (mean difference, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.28, 2.36; P = 0.01), and the private practice group achieved a better score for the variable of root angulation (mean difference, -0.65; 95% CI, -1.26, -0.03; P = 0.04). However, no statistically intergroup differences were found between the total American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System scores (mean difference, -0.5; 95% CI, -3.82, 4.82; P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Patients can receive similar quality of orthodontic treatment in a private practice and a university clinic. The orthodontists in the private practices were more successful in angulating the roots properly, whereas the orthodontic residents accomplished better torque control of the posterior segments and better marginal ridges. ABSTRACT Aim:The aims of this study were to compare treatment outcomes in university vs private practice, Class I patients, by using the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS). Materials and Method:A parent sample of 580 Class I patients treated with or without extractions of four first premolars was subjected to discriminant analysis in order to identify a borderline spectrum of 66 patients regarding to the extraction modality. Of these patients, 34were treated in private orthodontic practices and 32 in a university graduate orthodontic clinic. The treatment outcomes were evaluated using the 8 variables of the ABO-OGS. Results:The total score ranged from 10 to 47 (mean, 25.44; SD 9.8) Conclusions:Patients can receive similar quality of orthodontic treatment in a private practice or in a university clinic. Orthodontists in a private practice were more successful in angulating the roots properly whereas orthodontic residents accomplished better torque control of the posterior segments and better marginal ridges.

Outcomes of comprehensive fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological overview

“…Consequently, a high percentage of accordance can be achieved in both interexaminer and intraexaminer assessments, as reported in the orthodontic literature. 7 In addition to functioning as an objective clinical examination tool, the OGS is also used for the assessment of treatment progress and final outcomes with increased reliability, validity, and precision. 8 The ABO also developed the discrepancy index (DI) as a pretreatment scoring system, which has become an accepted and reliable index for the quantification of treatment complexity on the basis of orthodontic diagnostic records.…”

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 2—quality of treatment

“…Although patients were recruited in this clinical trial according to the sample size calculation for the primary outcome, an a priori power analysis was also carried out for the ABO CR-EVAL as a representative of the secondary outcomes. The sample size was calculated to detect a difference of 5 points in the mean total ABO CR-EVAL score which was considered as a clinically significant difference (11,26) with the standard deviation was taken from Detterline et al (2010) (11). A sample size of 73 patients in each group was expected to have 80% power to detect this difference where the effect size was calculated as a Cohen's D of 0.47 at P = 0.05.…”

Stability of nonextraction Class II malocclusion treatment with elastics

“…The random errors of the initial PAR and Cast-Radiograph evaluation (C-R eval) at T2 and T3 were within acceptable levels. 23 Values ranged from 1.07 to 1.74 points for the overall score, respectively. 23 There were no statistically significant systematic errors.…”

“…23 Values ranged from 1.07 to 1.74 points for the overall score, respectively. 23 There were no statistically significant systematic errors.…”

“…After a 30-day interval, a random sample of lateral cephalometric, panoramic radiographs and dental cast were selected and remeasured by the same examiner (A.N). The random errors were calculated according to Dahlberg's formula (Se2 = ∑d2/2n) 23 , where Se 2 is the error variance and d is the difference between two determinations of the same variable. The systematic errors were evaluated with dependent t tests, at P<0.05.…”