Objective Grading System Scores After the Use of a New Finishing Protocol
A Clinical Study
Objective: This non-randomized controlled clinical trial compared a new finishing protocol UDEA2 with the UDEA1 finishing protocol, according to the Objective Grading System (ogs).
Methods: Forty-one patients treated in the postgraduate orthodontics clinic were included. Twenty patients served as intervention group (ig) with whom was used the UDEA2 protocol which includes dental positioners, and were compared to twenty-one patients that served as control group (cg) with whom was used the UDEA1 finishing protocol. An orthodontist (gold standard) determined the required movements with positioners used in the UDEA2 protocol. Eight ogs variables were measured by a calibrated clinician.
Results: Both groups were comparable in gender, age and severity, but not in type of treatment applied. The total ogs for gc was 28.9±10.0, for ig at T1 (before the positioner) was 20.4±6.0 and the score for ig at T2 (after the positioner) was 19.2±6.0, with statistically significant differences (P≤0.05). The ogs score was principally increased for “alignment” in gc and ig-T1 groups. This variable decreased significantly in the ig-T2 group. There were no patients with more than 30 points in the ig-T2. The regression analysis showed an association (P=0.002) between the finishing protocol applied and the final ogs score. Possibility of belonging to the ig-T2 decreases as the ogs score increases (odds ratio [or] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.738, 0.933).
Conclusions: The implementation of the UDEA2 finishing protocol, which includes an orthodontics student’s constant training, a Finishing Protocol Guide application, and a dental positioner in the finishing phase, showed an improvement in quality of orthodontic treatments.
How to Cite
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Every single author of the articles has to declare that is an original unpublished work exclusively created by them, that it has not been submitted for simultaneous evaluation by another publication and that there is no impediment of any kind for concession of the rights provided for in the contract.
In this sense, the authors committed to await the result of the evaluation by the journal Revista Nacional de Odontologia before considering its submission to another medium; in case the response by that publication is positive, additionally, the authors committed to respond for any action involving claims, plagiarism or any other kind of claim that could be made by third parties.
At the same time, the authors have to declare that they are completely in agreement with the conditions presented in their work and that they cede all patrimonial rights. These rights involve reproduction, public communication, distribution, dissemination, transformation, making it available and all forms of exploitation of the work using any medium or procedure, during the term of the legal protection of the work and in every country in the world, to the Universidad Cooperativa de Colombia Press.
Proffit W, Fields H SD. La tercera fase del tratamiento general: acabado. In: Ortodoncia contemporánea. 4th ed. Barcelona: Elsevier; 2008; p. 602-616.
Uribe F. NR. Estrategias biomecánicas para el acabado óptimo. In: Biomecánicas y Estética. Estrategias en Ortodoncia Clínica. Caracas: AMOLCA; 2007; p. 330-347.
Knierim K, Roberts WE, Hartsfield J. Assessing Treatment Outcomes For A Graduate Orthodontics Program: Follow-Up Study for the Classes of 2001-2003. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006; 130(5): 648-655.
Fox NA, Daniels C, Gilgrass T. A Comparison of the Index of Complexity Outcome and Need (ICON) with the peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN). Br Dent J. England; 2002; 193(4): 225-230.
Delgado Carrera L, Llanes Rodríguez M, Rodríguez González L, Fernández Pérez E, Batista González NM. Historical Background of Epidemiological Indices for Orthodontic Treatment Priority. Rev Habanera Ciencias Médicas. 2015; 14(1): 60-69.
Casko JS, Vaden J, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. Objective Grading System for Dental Casts and Panoramic Radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1998; 114(5): 589-599.
ABO. The American Board of Orthodontics Grading System for Dental Casts and Panoramic Radiographs. 2012.
Barbosa Lis DM, Zapata Noreña O, Carvajal A, Franco CM, Rodriguez Aguirre SA, Florez Pino AA, et al. Outcome of Orthodontic Treatments and its Relationship to Malocclusion Complexity. Int J Odontostomatol. 2014; 8: 201-206.
Santiago JJ, Martínez CJ. Use of the objective grading system of the American Board of Orthodontics to evaluate treatment outcomes at the Orthodontic Graduate Program Clinic, University of Puerto Rico, 2007-2008. P R Health Sci J. 2012; 31(1): 29-34.
Yang-Powers LC, Sadowsky C, Rosenstein S, BeGole E a. Treatment Outcome in a Graduate Orthodontic Clinic Using the American Board of Orthodontics Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 [2013]; 122(5): 451-455.
Campbell CL, Roberts WE, Hartsfield Jr JK, Qi R. Treatment Outcomes in a Graduate Orthodontic Clinic for Cases Defined by the American Board of Orthodontics Malocclusion Categories. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007; 132(6): 822-829.
Barrera JE, Meza DM, Herrera CA. Evaluación de los tratamientos terminados en un posgrado de ortodoncia según los parámetros ABOs. Rev Latinoam Ortod y Odontopediatría. 2014.
Carvajal-Flórez A, Barbosa-Lis DM, Zapata-Noreña OA, Marín-Velásquez JA, Afanador-Bayona SA. Orthodontic
Treatment Outcomes Obtained by Application of a Finishing Protocol. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016; 21(2): 88-94.
Stock GJ, McNamara JA, Baccetti T. Efficacy of 2 Finishing Protocols in the Quality of Orthodontic Treatment Outcome. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011; 140(5): 688-695.
Weir T. Clear Aligners in Orthodontic Treatment. Aust Dent J. 2017; 62(S1): 58-62.
Zhang X-J, He L, Guo H-M, Tian J, Bai Y-X, Li S. Integrated three-dimensional digital assessment of accuracy of anterior tooth movement using clear aligners. Korean J Orthod. Korean Association of Orthodontists; 2015; 45(6):275–81.
Zheng M, Liu R, Ni Z, Yu Z. Efficiency, Effectiveness and Treatment Stability of Clear Aligners: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017; 20(3): 127-133.
Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Efficacy of Clear Aligners in Controlling Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Systematic Review. Angle Orthod. 2015; 85(5): 881-889.
Pravindevaprasad A, Therese BA. Tooth Positioners and Their Effects on Treatment Outcome. J Nat Sci Biol Med. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd; 2013; 4(2): 298-301.
Alford TJ, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK, Eckert GJ, Snyder RJ. Clinical Outcomes for Patients Finished with the SureSmileTM Method Compared with Conventional Fixed Orthodontic Therapy. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81(3): 383-388.
Anthopoulou C, Konstantonis D, Makou M. Treatment Outcomes after Extraction and Nonextraction Treatment Evaluated with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146(6): 717-723.
Akinci Cansunar H, Uysal T. Comparison of Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes in Nonextraction, 2 Maxillary Premolar Extraction, and 4 Premolar Extraction Protocols with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014; 145: 595-602.
Janson G, Costa Brambilla A da, Henriques JFC, Freitas MR de, Neves LS. Class II Treatment Success Rate in 2- and 4-Premolar Extraction Protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004; 125(4): 472-479.
Brown PN, Kulbersh R, Kaczynski R. Clinical Outcomes Assessment of Consecutively Finished Patients in a 24-Month Orthodontic Residency: A 5-Year Perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011; 139(5): 665-668.
Park Y, Hartsfield JK, Katona TR, Eugene Roberts W. Tooth Positioner Effects on Occlusal Contacts and Treatment Outcomes. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(6):1050-1056.
Bollen A-M, Huang G, King G, Hujoel P, Ma T. Activation Time and Material Stiffness of Sequential Removable Orthodontic Appliances. Part 1: Ability to Complete Treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003; 124(5): 496-501.
Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Ramina F, Huanca Ghislanzoni LT, Siciliani G. Predictability of Orthodontic Movement with Orthodontic Aligners: A Retrospective Study. Prog Orthod. 2017; 18(1): 35.
Bowman SJ, Celenza F, Sparaga J, Papadopoulos MA, Ojima K, Lin JC-Y. Creative Adjuncts for Clear Aligners, Part 3: Extraction and Interdisciplinary Treatment. J Clin Orthod. 2015; 49(4): 249-262.
