ABSTRACT
Objective:To analyze some clinical factors influencing the treatment outcomes by Peer assessment rating(PAR).Meth-ods:80 cases underwent othordontic therapy were included.The clinical data and treatment effects were analyzed by PAR,the behav-ioral and psychological evaluation of the subjects was collected and analyzed by statistics.Results:Improvement and great improvement were achieved in 42.5% and 56.3% of the patients.There was no significant difference in different groups of gender,bone-facial con-tour classification and tooth extraction,but there was a significant difference in different groups of Angle classification in terms of pre-treatment PAR and reduction of PAR.There was a linear regression between pre-treatment PAR and reduction of PAR and percentage reduction of PAR,respectively.PAR showed more decrease in the patients of Angle class III classification,than in those with Class II and Class I.Conclusion:PAR is less influenced by gender,bone-facial contour,classification and tooth extraction.PAR evaluation shows that the more severe initial Angle malocclusion the patients have,the more significant improvement they may finally obtain.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Given the considerable disagreement between the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and the American Board of Orthodontics Cast-Radiograph Evaluation, we aimed to develop a novel assessment system-the Improvement and Completion of Outcome (ICO) index-to evaluate the outcome of orthodontic treatment. METHODS: Sixteen criteria from 4 major categories were established to represent the pretreatment malocclusion status, as well as the degree of improvement and level of completion of outcome during/after treatment: dental relationship (arch length discrepancy, irregularity, U1-SN, and IMPA); anteroposterior relationship (overjet, right and left molar position, ANB); vertical relationship (anterior overbite, anterior open-bite, lateral open-bite, SN-MP); and transverse relationship (dental midline discrepancy, chin point deviation, posterior cross-bite, occlusal plane cant). The score for each criterion was defined from 0 or −1 (worst) to 5 (ideal value or normal occlusion) in gradations of 1. The sum of the scores in each category indicates the area and extent of the problems. Improvement and completion percentages were estimated based on the pre- and post-treatment total scores and the maximum total score. If the completion percentage exceeded 80%, treatment outcome was considered successful. RESULTS: Two cases, Class I malocclusion and skeletal Class III malocclusion, are presented to represent the assessment procedure using the ICO index. The difference in the level of improvement and completion of treatment outcome can be clearly explained by using 2 percentage values. CONCLUSIONS: Thus, the ICO index enables the evaluation of the quality of orthodontic treatment objectively and consecutively throughout the entire treatment process.
Subject(s)
Chin , Dental Occlusion , Malocclusion , Molar , Orthodontics , Overbite , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The study aimed to assess patient satisfaction withtheir orthodontic treatment outcome and type of casesaccepted for orthodontic treatment at the Faculty ofDentistry, University of Malaya (UM) and to audit thequality of treatment outcome. The standard set were100% patient should be satisfied with their treatmentoutcome and less than 5% of the proportion of casesshould fall in the “worse/no different’ category with amean reduction of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scorebeing greater than 70%. Records of cases that hadcompleted orthodontic treatment were traced. Surveyforms were sent to 150 patients that had met theinclusion and exclusion criteria. Their intact studymodels were assessed for the Index of OrthodonticTreatment Need (IOTN) and PAR. 21.3% responded tothe survey, of which 59.4% had treatment involvingfixed appliances and 37.6% had either removable orfunctional appliances or retainers. 93.8% respondentswere satisfied with their dental alignment and 87.5%with the overall treatment results. For the dental healthcomponent of the IOTN, 63.3% had ‘definite need’ and21.1% had ‘borderline need’ for treatment. For theaesthetic component of the IOTN, 24.2% had ‘definiteneed’ and 32.0% had‘borderline need’ for treatment.For the PAR, 8.0% had an outcome of “worst/nodifferent”. The mean PAR reduction score was 75.3%.In conclusion, although majority were satisfied withtheir treatment results, there is still a need to improveon the standard of care to address the issues of theminority who were not satisfied with the treatmentoutcome.
ABSTRACT
As one of the variations in growth and development of the craniofacial complex, malocclusion shows lack of concordance in the recognition and severity of malocclusion for dentists as well as the acceptance and need of orthodontic treatment for the patient. The purposes of this study were 1) to examine the relationships between objective malocclusion severity and subjective treatment difficulty, 2) to evaluate the effect of malocclusion components to the subjective perceived difficulty of treatment, 3) to establish the weighted values of malocclusion components to reflect the treatment difficulty. 100 pairs of dental casts with the general characteristics of malocclusion, were selected from the orthodontic departments of Kyunghee University and Samsung Medical Center. The severity of malocclusion was evaluated by the author with the PAR index. The perceived treatment difficulty and the estimated treatment duration on these dental models were evaluated by 8 experienced orthodontists. The relationships between the objective malocclusion severity and the subjective treatment difficulty were statistically evaluated, and the weighted values of malocclusion components to reflect treatment difficulty were statistically formulated. There were significant relationships between objective malocclusion severity and subjective treatment difficulty. The malocclusion components which significantly affected the treatment difficulty and their weighted values in parentheses were as follows; upper anterior alignment (1), overbite (2), buccal occlusion (3), midline (4), and overjet (5). This study provides the fundamental principle to evaluate the objective malocclusion severity which is reflected by the subjective treatment difficulty of Korean orthodontists.