Factors Affecting Patient Treatment Duration in an Advanced Orthodontic Education Clinic.

Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study is to investigate the degree of coincidence between the peer assessment rating (PAR) index and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) in the assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes of Class I malocclusion cases. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 26 Class I patients. The PAR index was used for evaluation of pre-(T0) and posttreatment (T1) casts, and the ABO-OGS for assessment of T1 casts. If there was a reduction in PAR scores from T0 to T1 of more than 30%, the label 'PAR+' was given to the case, and if not, it was labeled 'PAR-'. If the ABO-OGS was less than 27, the label 'OGS+' was given to the case and if not, it was labeled 'OGS-'. 'A PAR-only qualified group' (PAR+), 'ABO-OGS-only qualified group' (OGS+), 'both indices qualified group' (PAR+/OGS+), and 'both indices disqualified group' (PAR-/OGS-) were compared with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, sensitivity/specifi city test and Spearman's correlation test. Result: PAR scores for T0, T1, and percentage reduction were 21.1, 6.4, and 65.9%, respectively, and 35.4 for ABOOGS. The distribution of the 'PAR+/OGS+', 'PAR+', and 'PAR-/OGS-' group was 19.3%, 76.9%, and 3.8%, respectively. The T0-PAR, T1-PAR and PAR point reductions for the 'PAR+' group were significantly higher than those of 'PAR+/OGS+' groups (23.1 vs. 15.6; 6.7 vs. 4.6; and 16.5 vs. 11.0; all P<0.05). However, the PAR-percentage reduction and treatment duration between the two groups were not statistically different (70.0% vs. 67.0%, P=0.4325; 24.1 months vs. 25.0 months, P=0.4057). The T1-ABO-OGS score for 'PAR+' group was significantly higher than that of the 'PAR+/OGS+' groups (38.2 vs. 24.0, P<0.001). Conclusion: Since the fraction of the 'PAR+/OGS+' group was less than 20% and there was no significant correlation between PAR-percentage reduction and T1-ABO-OGS, development of a new index system for the accurate evaluation of treatment outcome is needed.

Comparison of peer assessment rating (PAR) index scores of plaster and computer-based digital models

Association between initial complexity, frequency of refinements, treatment duration, and outcome in Invisalign orthodontic treatment

To investigate the combined orthodontic-orthognathic treatment times at an academic hospital in the UK and to consider the level of occlusal change in delivering this treatment by the way of comparing peer assessment rating (PAR) scores pre- and post-treatment. It was a retrospective longitudinal study of orthognathic patients between 2010 and 2013 who had completed orthognathic treatment. Analysis of records of 50 patients was carried out. Age, gender malocclusion, and skeletal pattern, extraction/nonextraction of teeth, duration of active orthodontic treatment, number of appointments, transfer of patients between orthodontists mid-treatment, and PAR scores pre and post-treatment were recorded for each patient. The skeletal pattern was III in 70% of and II in 28% of patients. Mean duration of active orthodontic treatment was 27.9 months. Age, gender, malocclusion, and skeletal pattern did not seem to affect treatment times. Extraction of teeth and transfer of operators increased treatment times. The mean PAR reduction was 89% with the PAR efficiency factor (reduction in PAR scores divided by duration of treatment in months) of 1.61. Younger patients, those with class III malocclusions and patients starting with higher PAR scores, achieved greater PAR reductions. Gender, number of appointments, extractions, transfer of operators, and total duration of treatment were not shown to affect the PAR % reduction. Combined orthodontic-orthognathic treatment has been effective in treating patients with severe skeletal discrepancies. Transfer of operators and extractions protracted treatment times. Younger patients and those with class III malocclusions achieved higher PAR % reduction.

Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: A prospective randomized clinical trial

This paper examines the relationship between orthodontists' subjective assessment of treatment need and objective measurements obtained during standardized intra- and extraoral examinations. Logistic regression modeling was used to develop predictive models of treatment need. Data were obtained from 1155 eighth-grade students by four orthodontists who used standardized examination forms to assess demographics, trauma, skeletal relationships, morphologic malocclusion traits, and mandibular function. At the conclusion of the examination, the orthodontist rated the subjective treatment need as none, elective, recommended, soon, or immediate. For some analyses, the categories were collapsed to represent no need and need. The peer assessment rating (PAR) index (American validated version) was computed from the clinical exam findings and scoring of dental models; PAR scores were used to document malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Spearman rank correlation coefficients quantified the relationship between PAR scores and need categories. Logistic regression analysis modeled treatment need using components of the PAR index as well as other variables. The components of these models, as well as sensitivity and specificity, were compared with malocclusion severity/treatment difficulty scores obtained from malocclusion assessments using the PAR index. The five subjective treatment need categories and the PAR index scores were significantly correlated (rho = 0.62, p<0.001). Significant differences were detected between the need and no need groups for all PAR components (p<0.001). PAR index scores and predicted probabilities from logistic regression models performed equally well for classification purposes (no need, need). The data suggest that the PAR index is highly correlated with orthodontists' subjective assessment of treatment need when that assessment is made in the absence of financial considerations and patient desires.

Introduction The use of objective criteria is essential to uniformly quantify and measure the severity of malocclusions and the efficacy of different treatment modalities. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and, more recently, the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (OGS) were developed to fulfill this need. Aim The aim of this retrospective study was to assess and compare treatment outcomes using the UK and US weighted PAR and the OGS. Materials and methods The sample consisted of randomly selected records of 50 patients treated by residents in one postgraduate orthodontic clinic. UK and US weightings for the PAR index were applied and compared with OGS. Results There was no statistically significant association between the OGS and the PAR index grading systems. Neither the UK nor the US PAR weightings showed statistically significant correlation with the OGS. All cases were ‘greatly improved’ or ‘improved’ according to the PAR index, while most cases (62%) failed according to OGS. There was a statistically significant correlation between the unweighted PAR index and the OGS (r = −0.32, p = 0.024). The US and the UK weightings for the PAR were highly correlated (r = 0.90, p &lt; 0.001). Both weighting systems were also highly correlated with the unweighted PAR (p &lt; 0.001). There were no gender differences found in any of the scoring systems. Conclusions The current PAR index cannot replace the OGS for evaluating treatment outcomes. The current OGS cannot detect the improvement achieved in a treated case.

The objective of this study was to compare the occlusal changes of Class II malocclusion treatment provided by two different types of appliances. Group 1 comprised 25 patients treated with the Fränkel appliance and group 2 comprised 30 patients treated with the eruption guidance appliance. Evaluations were performed on the initial and final study models of the patients using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. The final mean PAR index, the mean PAR change, and the percent PAR reduction of each group were compared using the Student's t-test. Results demonstrated that there were no statistically significant differences between the final PAR index, the PAR changes, and the percent PAR reduction of the two groups. Therefore, it was concluded that the occlusal changes provided by the two appliances are similar, as evaluated by the PAR index.

Did the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic affect orthodontic treatment outcomes? A clinical evaluation using the objective grading system and Peer Assessment Rating index

Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances

An accredited graduate orthodontic program provides advanced specialty education to meet standards of care mandated by the ADA, including both didactic and clinical components with defined outcome measures. To quantify these measures, the quality of care provided by graduate orthodontic students was compared to that of orthodontists in private practice. The quality of care was studied in two different delivery settings in the Columbus, Ohio, area-private practice orthodontists (PPO) and the OSU graduate orthodontic clinic (GOC). The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Occlusal Index was used as a measure of malocclusion severity and post-treatment occlusal outcome. Quality of care was measured using post-treatment PAR, percent PAR reduction, and treatment duration. At baseline, no differences were seen in the gender and pre-PAR scores of patients treated by the PPO and GOC, but statistically significant differences were seen in patients' pre-treatment age, race, and starting dentition. When the post-treatment occlusal results were compared, no statistically significant differences were seen in post-PAR scores and percent PAR reduction between the PPO and GOC. A statistically significant difference was seen in treatment duration (p = 0.002), which was longer in the PPO even after controlling for confounding factors such as pre-treatment age, gender, race, starting dentition, and treatment stages. Our conclusion is that there was no statistically significant difference in the occlusal outcome between the PPO and GOC, but there was a significant difference in the treatment duration.

The first 100 consecutively started cases treated by a specialist registrar in orthodontics were examined and pre- and post-study models were scored using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index. The PAR index proved both simple and reproducible to use: 92 cases had post-treatment records available, 91 patients registered a drop in PAR score, and one patient registered an increase. Of these 92 patients, 38 (41%) were greatly improved, 43 (47%) were improved, and 11 (12%) were made worse or no different (ie they failed to achieve a 30% drop in PAR score). Of the factors examined, only the appliance type used was significantly related to PAR score change. Of the 11 cases apparently made worse, individual examination revealed that four of these represented beneficial occlusal changes but due to limited treatment goals they did not register as improved using the PAR index according to previously agreed criteria. The PAR index measures 'good tooth position' which, although very important, is not the only factor in orthodontic treatment. The use of the PAR index to detect 'good' and 'bad' orthodontic treatment is not without problems. Its use in mixed dentition and adjunctive orthodontic treatments may not always be appropriate.

Determine optimal weightings of Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and Discrepancy Index (DI) for malocclusion severity assessment in Chinese orthodontic patients. Sixty-nine Chinese orthodontists assessed a full set of pre-treatment records from a stratified random sample of 120 subjects gathered from six university orthodontic centres. Using professional judgment as the outcome variable, multiple regression analyses were performed to derive customized weighting systems for the PAR index and DI, for all subjects and each Angle classification subgroup. Professional judgment was consistent, with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.995. The PAR index or DI can be reliably measured, with ICC = 0.959 and 0.990, respectively. The predictive accuracy of PAR index was greatly improved by the Chinese weighting process (from r = 0.431 to r = 0.788) with almost equal distribution in each Angle classification subgroup. The Chinese-weighted DI showed a higher predictive accuracy, at P = 0.01, compared with the PAR index (r = 0.851 versus r = 0.788). A better performance was found in the Class II group (r = 0.890) when compared to Class I (r = 0.736) and III (r = 0.785) groups. The Chinese-weighted PAR index and DI were capable of predicting 62 per cent and 73 per cent of total variance in the professional judgment of malocclusion severity in Chinese patients. Differential prediction across Angle classifications merits attention since different weighting formulas were found.

This study aimed to determine cut-off points for the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index in relation with Angle classification to use as an alternative index for the treatment need assessment. This study included 607 orthodontic patients aged between 9 and 18 years. Angle classification, PAR, and dental aesthetic index (DAI) scores were determined. The DAI was used as the gold standard to evaluate the subjects for treatment need. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the PAR index in relation to treatment need assessed by DAI. The mean PAR scores for Class I, II, and III malocclusions and total sample were 17.54, 14.27, 18.7, and 20.04, respectively. The areas under the ROC of PAR scores in relation to the DAI assessment were found as 68.3% for the total sample, 66.6% Class I, 59.2% Class II, and 71.3% Class III malocclusions. For the total sample, the optimum cut-off PAR score was 14 in relation to DAI assessment. The cut-off scores for Class I, II, and III malocclusions were 13, 11, and 16, respectively, but considering psychosocial aspects, the recommended score is 14 for Class III. The PAR index can be considered to have an acceptable level of validity for the assessment of orthodontic treatment need regarding Angle classification.

Malocclusion severity in Asian men in relation to malocclusion type and orthodontic treatment need