Outcomes of orthodontic treatment performed by individual orthodontists vs 2 orthodontists collaborating on treatment.

INTRODUCTION: One factor that can affect treatment outcomes is the treatment provider, and this factor has not been extensively studied. This research aimed to evaluate orthodontic treatment quality, length, and efficiency when 2 orthodontists collaborated on treatment, compared with the treatment provided solely by either orthodontist. METHODS: A total of 150 consecutively treated subjects were divided into 3 equal groups based on the treating clinician. Patients in group A were treated by orthodontist A, group B by orthodontist B, and group C by both orthodontists in collaboration. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR), Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON), American Board of Orthodontics-Discrepancy Index, and American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiographic Evaluation were used to assess the pretreatment and posttreatment status. Patient age, gender, type of malocclusion, extraction treatment, orthognathic surgery, treatment length, number of visits, and treatment efficiency index were assessed. RESULTS: Posttreatment PAR and ICON indices showed excellent results in all 3 groups. American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiographic Evaluation was significantly higher in group C (25.3 points) than in group A (21.5 points) or group B (22.0 points) (P = 0.014). Patients in group A had significantly shorter treatment time (23 months) than those in either group B or C (26 months) (P = 0.011). Patients in group C required more appointments (27 visits) than those in either group A or B (23 and 25 visits, respectively). The treatment efficiency index showed no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in treatment quality among the 3 groups, as assessed by the PAR index and ICON. Jointly treated cases required 2 to 4 more visits and had higher American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiograph Evaluation scores than those treated by either orthodontist. Complex cases required 6 to 7 more months when they were treated collaboratively.

Prevalence of apical periodontitis and quality of root canal treatment in an adult Saudi population.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the health status of periradicular tissue and the quality of root canal fillings in an adult Saudi population attending dental clinics for the first time. Methods: This cross sectional study was conducted  in the dental clinics at King Saud University, Riyadh and other dental centers (Jeddah, Najran, and Albaha City), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia between year 2010   and 2012. Good-quality panoramic radiographs of 926 Saudi subjects (540 males and 386 females)were analyzed based on the gender, age, health status, smoking habits, periapical status of the endodontically treated teeth, technical quality of the root canal fillings, and the presence or absence of coronal restoration. Data were calibrated and statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) version 17.  Results: Of the 25,028 teeth examined, 1,556 teeth (6.2%) had apical periodontitis (AP). Male subjects aged over 55 years and females between 36 and 45 years had higher AP. A total of 36 diabetic and 87 smokers subjects had AP. The AP was more common in male diabetics than female (p=0.383), and in female smokers more than male (p=0.44). Only 42.2% of male and 57.7% of female teeth had adequate root canal treatment.  Conclusions: Apical periodontitis was significantly related to diabetes, smoking, and inadequate endodontic treatment.