Comparison of Treatment Outcome of Invisalign (RTM) and Traditional Fixed Orthodontics by Model Analysis Using ABO Objective Grading System PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Comparison of Treatment Outcome of Invisalign (RTM) and Traditional Fixed Orthodontics by Model Analysis Using ABO Objective Grading System PDF full book. Access full book title Comparison of Treatment Outcome of Invisalign (RTM) and Traditional Fixed Orthodontics by Model Analysis Using ABO Objective Grading System by Omar Fetouh. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Omar Fetouh Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 41
Book Description
Introduction: Invisalign® has become one of the very popular treatment modalities requested by patients to straighten their teeth. However, there has been great controversy among clinicians about the effectiveness of this new treatment modality. Indeed, there are very few studies that report the effectiveness and appropriateness of Invisalign®. It was thus the goal of this retrospective study to help clinicians in deciding whether Invisalign® is appropriate to their patients or not. Materials and Methods: Sixty-seven patients with Class I malocclusion, mild crowing and some overbite were included in this study. All cases had Discrepancy Index (DI) less than 5 and were treated non-extraction. All patients had full permanent dentition and no missing teeth. Thirty-four patients were treated with traditional fixed orthodontics (braces group) and 33 patients were treated with Invisalign®. All patients were treated in a private clinic in Buffalo, New York, by the same practitioner. The posttreatment models were graded using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS) to assess the treatment outcome of both groups. Paired t-test was used to analyze the data collected in this study. Results: There was no statistical significant differences between the scores of the Invisalign® group and Braces group for Alignment (p=0.059), Occlusal Relationship (p=0.223) and Interproximal Contacts. The Invislaign® group had higher scores in Marginal ridges, Bucco-lingual inclination, Occlusal Contacts, and Overjet than Braces group. Conclusion: According to OGS, Invisalign® can treat mild malocclusion with DI less than 5 as efficiently, if not better, as braces. This study helps clinicians to determine which patients are best suited for Invisalign® treatment.
Author: Omar Fetouh Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 41
Book Description
Introduction: Invisalign® has become one of the very popular treatment modalities requested by patients to straighten their teeth. However, there has been great controversy among clinicians about the effectiveness of this new treatment modality. Indeed, there are very few studies that report the effectiveness and appropriateness of Invisalign®. It was thus the goal of this retrospective study to help clinicians in deciding whether Invisalign® is appropriate to their patients or not. Materials and Methods: Sixty-seven patients with Class I malocclusion, mild crowing and some overbite were included in this study. All cases had Discrepancy Index (DI) less than 5 and were treated non-extraction. All patients had full permanent dentition and no missing teeth. Thirty-four patients were treated with traditional fixed orthodontics (braces group) and 33 patients were treated with Invisalign®. All patients were treated in a private clinic in Buffalo, New York, by the same practitioner. The posttreatment models were graded using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS) to assess the treatment outcome of both groups. Paired t-test was used to analyze the data collected in this study. Results: There was no statistical significant differences between the scores of the Invisalign® group and Braces group for Alignment (p=0.059), Occlusal Relationship (p=0.223) and Interproximal Contacts. The Invislaign® group had higher scores in Marginal ridges, Bucco-lingual inclination, Occlusal Contacts, and Overjet than Braces group. Conclusion: According to OGS, Invisalign® can treat mild malocclusion with DI less than 5 as efficiently, if not better, as braces. This study helps clinicians to determine which patients are best suited for Invisalign® treatment.
Author: Waseem Kassas Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 57
Book Description
Invisalign® is a new orthodontic treatment modality of treating malocclusion with an advanced esthetic approach. It provides an esthetic and hygienic alternative for patients who want to undergo orthodontic treatment without affecting their facial appearance. However, few studies have been published to evaluate the effectiveness of this appliance. Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the Invisalign treatment outcome of mild to moderate malocclusions by using the Model grading system (MGS) of the American board of orthodontics (ABO). Materials and Methods: A total of 425 Invisalign® cases were identified from an orthodontic private practice in buffalo, New York State. Of 425 cases, 119 met the inclusion criteria of having full permanent dentition with (DI) score between 10 and 20, and treated completely with Invisalign without extraction. From those 119 cases, only 31 cases had a complete set of records before and after treatment. The pre-and post-treatment models were assessed using the ABO Model Grading System (MGS) .Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the pre-and post-treatment MGS scores in all categories. Results: The mean scores of all MGS categories (except occlusal contacts score and occlusal relationship score) were improved after treatment. Significant improvements were found in OGS Score (45.03"7.47 vs. 35.87"9.36, p
Author: Jiafeng Gu Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 40
Book Description
Introduction: The purpose of this retrospective case-control study was to compare the treatment effectiveness and efficiency of the Invisalign system and conventional fixed appliances in treating orthodontic patients with mild to moderate malocclusion in a graduate orthodontic clinic. Methods: Using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index, we evaluated pretreatment and posttreatment records of 48 Invisalign patients and 48 fixed appliances patients. Those two groups of patients were controlled for general characteristics and initial severity of malocclusion. We analyzed treatment outcome, duration and improvement between the Invisalign and fixed appliances groups. Results: The average pretreatment PAR score (United Kingdom weighting) was 20.81 for Invisalign and 22.79 for fixed appliances (P = 1.0000). Posttreatment weighted PAR scores between Invisalign and fixed appliances were not statistically different (P = 0.7420). On average, Invisalign finished 5.7 months faster than fixed appliances (P = 0.0040). The weighted PAR score reduction with treatment was not statistically different between the Invisalign and fixed appliances groups (P = 0.4573). All cases in both groups had more than 30% reduction in PAR score. Logistic regression analysis indicates the odds of achieving "great improvement" in Invisalign group was only 0.329 times the odds of achieving “great improvement” in the fixed appliances group after controlling for age (P = 0.0150). Conclusions: Our data show that both Invisalign and fixed appliances were able to improve the malocclusion. Invisalign finished treatment faster than fixed appliances. However, it appears that Invisalign may not be as effective as fixed appliances in achieving "great improvement" in the malocclusion. This study might help clinicians to determine appropriate cases for Invisalign treatment.
Author: Nicholas Ralph Terrana Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 157
Book Description
Objectives: Little is known about the treatment standards and expectations of Invisalign treatment outcomes between orthodontists and general practitioners (GP). The objective of this qualitative research project was to explore how orthodontists and GPs perceive Invisalign treatment outcomes, and to determine which criteria they use to judge successful treatment. Methods: Open-ended interviews were conducted with three orthodontists and two GPs. These interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded and analyzed by the conventional phenomenological qualitative research protocol. Each clinician selected four Invisalign cases that they treated and perceived as successful outcomes. To augment qualitative methods, quantitative data were generated to determine pre-treatment Discrepancy Index (DI) and post-treatment Objective Grading System (OGS) scores as calculated by OrthoCAD software. Results: Independent sample T-tests showed no significant difference in total DI score (p=0.287) and total OGS score (p=0.840) between the orthodontist (n=12) and GP (n=7) cases. Orthodontists perceive incisor torque and smile esthetics as important criteria for successful Invisalign outcomes. In contrast, GPs do not. Orthodontists and GPs unanimously perceive that Class I occlusion is an important criterion for successful treatment. GPs perceive extraction cases as a challenge to obtain successful outcome with Invisalign whereas, orthodontists do not. Conclusions: Differences exist between orthodontist and GP perceptions of what constitutes successful Invisalign treatment. Currently employed standards of excellence can be found in a wide spectrum of finishes; however, they are incapable of defining the excellence of finish. Selective standards differentiate the GPs from orthodontists, but agreement exists for ambition to finish in Class I occlusion. Esthetics and torque are valued higher by the orthodontists than are by the GPs. The utility of current standards- of-care need to be questioned and redefined.
Author: Robert Aszkler Publisher: ISBN: Category : Languages : en Pages : 56
Book Description
The American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) has made an attempt to improve our profession and attempted to quantify the proper arrangement of teeth after they have received orthodontic treatment. They developed a Model Grading System in order for orthodontists to assess the adequacy and quality of their orthodontic treatment more objectively1. This system was developed in the early 90's and has been used since then. It relies on eight criteria to determine the adequacy of the treatment result. They are: alignment, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, occlusal relationships, occlusal contacts, overjet, interproximal contacts, and root angulation. Each one of these criterion is essential to proper orthodontic treatment. This study was an attempt to quantify the relationship of the ABO's Model Grading System to an overall excellent orthodontic result. It also attempted to address the areas that are of concern to orthodontists post-treatment.^Which of the eight criteria are more likely to get worse post-treatment and which will improve. This study was a retrospective study that utilized plaster models from the patient's final records and post-treatment records that were previously taken and recorded. Thirty cases were selected based on completeness of records treated by a single orthodontist (R.G. "Wick" Alexander, D.D.S., MSD). Each of the thirty cases was assigned a number 1-30 to identify them. The inclusion criterion for the study was that both arches were treated orthodontically. The exclusion criterion excluded lower incisor extraction cases from the study. An initial Discrepancy Index for each of the selected thirty cases was performed to determine the difficulty of each case. The final models of each case was then graded using the ABO Model Grading Assessment immediately post-treatment (T2) and at post-retention (T3).^Statistical Analysis was performed on the eight Model Grading System criteria including Paired t-tests and Pearson product correlations. It was shown that marginal ridges and occlusal contacts scored less well at T2 partly because of Dr. Alexander's bracket prescription. These criteria showed a highly significant decrease in score between T2 and T3. The average total score showed a highly significant decrease between T2 and T3 partly because of the large decrease in previous two criteria. Further research needs to be done utilizing more cases treated by more than one orthodontist. This will conclusively determine which of the eight criteria get better or worse with time.
Author: Jeffrey A. Jamieson Publisher: ISBN: Category : Orthodontics Languages : en Pages : 64
Book Description
Introduction: Initial complexity (Discrepancy Index), treatment time, and treatment outcome (Objective Grading System) were compared for the four examination types of the 2007 and 2008 American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) clinical examination: Initial Certification, Final Recertification, Option 1, and Option II examinations. Methods: Retrospective study using clinical examination data for 1122 ABO clinical exam cases in which the candidate received a passing score were compared. Results: No significant findings were discovered between the four examination types for overall OGS or DI:OGS correlation. However, significant differences were found between the four examination types for overall DI, DI components (overbite, anterior, open bit, occlusion, other), OGS components (buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationship), and treatment time. Conclusions: Compared to private practitioners, cases treated by orthodontic residents had more ideal OGS scores for buccolingual inclination and less ideal OGS scores for overjet, occlusal contacts, and occlusal relationships. Treatment times vary significantly between the four examination types, with resident treatment the shortest and Option II treatment the longest. Prospective examinations (ICE and Option II) differ significantly from Retrospective examinations (Option I (First Recertification).
Author: Orhan C. Tuncay Publisher: Quintessence Publishing (IL) ISBN: Category : Medical Languages : en Pages : 344
Book Description
Unlike conventional fixed orthodentic treatment approaches, Invisalign is a system that uses diagnostics data to create a three-dimensional image of the desired course of tooth movement; a series of custom-made, clear plastic aligners are then fabricated and used to achieve the treatment goal. This book explains the technique.
Author: Richard Bouchez Publisher: Quintessence Publishing (IL) ISBN: 9782912550675 Category : Malocclusion Languages : en Pages : 0
Book Description
In the established tradition of the Clinical Success series, this succinct and easy-to-read book provides practitioners with a solid foundation for daily clinical use of the Invisalign system. The author introduces the reader to essentials of Invisalign treatment, from the basic biomechanics of thermoformed plastic aligners to the the ClinCheck 3D simulation treatment planning software, which allows the clinician to program in advance the velocity and direction of tooth movements; amount and frequency of force; anchorage; and available space necessary for the planned movements. Clinical results of various treatment types are shown using Invisalign system alone and in conjunction with other orthodontic treatments. This book is ideal for any orthodontist who wants to use the Invisalign system to achieve an optimal treatment outcome.
Author: Omar Fetouh
Author: Omar Fetouh
Author: Waseem Kassas
Author: Jiafeng Gu
Author: Nicholas Ralph Terrana
Author: Robert Aszkler
Author: Devon R. Cook
Author: Jeffrey A. Jamieson
Author: Scott Vincent
Author: Orhan C. Tuncay
Author: Richard Bouchez