American Board Of Orthodontics Objective Grading System Research Articles

Factors influencing treatment outcomes assessed by the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS)

BackgroundTreatment outcomes can be influenced by various factors. This study aimed to determine the association between predisposing patient- and treatment-related factors (demographic, cephalometric parameters, skeletal relationships, Discrepancy Index (DI), extractions, treatment type and duration) and treatment outcomes measures according to the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System index (ABO-OGS).MethodsCompleted cases (N = 100) were included in this cross-sectional study. One calibrated examiner assessed DI, pretreatment lateral cephalometric parameters and ABO-OGS. Patient data, including sex, age, types of malocclusion, extractions, treatment type, and duration, were also collected. Intraexaminer reliability for each measurement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficients. Multiple linear regression analysis, using the backward elimination method with a significance level (α) of 0.05, was used to determine which factors significantly influenced the ABO-OGS score.ResultsFrom the study, the overall mean ABO-OGS score was 11.36 points. Factors influencing the ABO-OGS score were pretreatment Wits values (p value = .000), L1-NB (°) (p value = .023) and treatment duration (p value = .019). Subjects with lower negative values of Wits and L1-NB (°) tended to have higher ABO-OGS scores. Additionally, the ABO-OGS score tended to be higher for subjects with longer treatment times.ConclusionsThe majority of treated subjects had satisfactory orthodontic treatment outcomes assessed by the ABO-OGS. The pretreatment severity of skeletal discrepancies determined by the Wits parameter, the degree of retroclined lower incisors and longer treatment duration negatively impacted the treatment outcomes.

Treatment effectiveness of young adults using clear aligners versus buccal fixed appliances in class I malocclusion with first premolar extraction using the ABO-Objective Grading System: A randomized controlled clinical trial

To compare the effectiveness of the clear aligners with the traditional fixed appliances in the treatment of premolars extraction complex cases using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS). A single-centre, 2-parallel groups RCT with two arms. Forty severe crowding patients (14 males, 26 females; mean age: 21.40±2.42) who required four first premolars extraction were included and randomly allocated into two treatment groups: clear aligners therapy group (CAT), and fixed appliances therapy group (FAT). Cases complexities were measured on pre-treatment records using the Discrepancy index (DI). Post-treatment records were evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS). Two sample t-tests and Fisher's Exact tests were used to test for significant differences between the two groups. The statistical significance was set atP<0.006 using Bonferroni's correction. For the DI, the mean scores were 32.25 (±4.33) in the CAT group and 33 (±7.92) in the FAT group. In the CAT group, the total OGS score ranged between 6-33 points with an average of 17.50(±7.41), whereas the total score in the FAT group went between 4-30 points with an average of 12.89 (±6.31) with no significant differences between the two groups (P=0.05). When comparison of the successful cases between the two groups was made, 11 cases received passing scores, and 9 cases received failing scores in the CAT group. Whereas in the FAT group, 17 cases received passing scores, and 3 received a failing score. No statistically significant differences were found in the passing rates between of the CAT and FAT groups (P=0.421). According to the ABO-OGS total scores, there was no significant difference between the clear aligners and fixed appliances in the treatment of class I severe crowding cases with first premolars extraction in young adults. There were no differences between the two techniques in the OGS components scores except for the occlusal contacts, which were significantly better with the fixed appliances. When comparing the number of successful and failed cases between the two groups, no significant differences were noted, with the fixed appliances having a 30% higher success rate than the clear aligners, which must be considered clinically when choosing between these two techniques in the complex orthodontic cases treatment.

Three-dimensional evaluation of a virtual setup considering the roots and alveolar bone in molar distalization cases

We aimed to evaluate root parallelism and the dehiscence or fenestrations of virtual teeth setup using roots isolated from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. Sixteen patients undergoing non-extraction orthodontic treatment with molar distalization were selected. Composite teeth were created by merging CBCT-isolated roots with intraoral scan-derived crowns. Three setups were performed sequentially: crown setup considering only the crowns, root setup-1 considering root alignment, and root setup-2 considering the roots and surrounding alveolar bone. We evaluated the parallelism and exposure of the roots and compared the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) scores using three-dimensionally printed models among the setups. The mean angulation differences between adjacent teeth in root setups-1 and -2 were significantly smaller than in the crown setup, except for some posterior teeth (p < 0.05). The amount of root exposure was significantly smaller in root setup-2 compared to crown setup and root setup-1 except when the mean exposure was less than 0.6 mm (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in ABO-OGS scores among the setups. Thus, virtual setup considering the roots and alveolar bone can improve root parallelism and reduce the risk of root exposure without compromising occlusion quality.

Treatment of skeletal classIII malocclusion using acombined clear aligner and surgery-early approach : Assessment based on the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System.

To evaluate whether clear aligner therapy (CAT) combined with asurgery-early approach can achieve good therapeutic effects in patients with skeletal classIII malocclusion. Thirty consecutive skeletal classIII malocclusion cases treated with clear aligners combined with early surgery were selected. Treatment time, lateral cephalograms and American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) scores of the treatment models were measured to evaluate the treatment efficiency, facial profile, and occlusion. The results showed that early surgery was achieved after 7.71months of presurgical orthodontics, on average. ANB decreased by 5.57° (P < 0.001), and STissueN Vert to Pog' decreased by 7.29 mm (P = 0.001), both reaching normal values. The posttreatment ABO-OGS scores were 26.600 on average, meeting its standards. With the assistance of CAT, early surgery can be accomplished in patients with skeletal classIII malocclusion, improving their facial profile and achieving functional occlusion.

Dental, skeletal, and soft-tissue changes in adult orthodontic patients treated with premolar extraction and nonextraction: A cross-sectional study

Various treatment modalities exist to improve and correct Class I malocclusion. This study evaluated the dental, skeletal, and soft-tissue changes in patients treated by premolar extraction (PME) and nonextraction. A cross-sectional study was conducted, including subjects ideally planned for PME. Pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalograms were compared among the 2 groups. The American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) was used to score the posttreatment casts, and soft-tissue profile silhouettes were judged by a panel of orthodontists to evaluate the improvement among the 2 groups. Comparisons between the 2 groups were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test.Spearman correlation was used to study the correlation between the assessment methodologies. Highly significant differences were observed between the 2 groups for ABO-OGS scores (P≤0.001) and profile silhouette assessment (P≤0.001). Compared with posttreatment cephalometric readings, highly significant differences were seen for the dental variables: SN-U1, IMPA, and interincisal angle (P≤0.001). Statistically significant differences were seen for all soft-tissue cephalometric variables. Highly significant moderate to negative correlation (r= -0.410, P≤0.001) was seen between profile silhouettes and ABO-OGS alignment scores. Highly significant strong negative correlation (r= -0.642, P≤0.001) was seen between profile silhouettes and the lower lip. Dental and soft-tissue changes were highly significant and were found to be in the ideal range when treated with PME. However, PME and nonextraction treatment modalities did not significantly affect the skeletal parameters as seen on the lateral cephalogram.

American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index and peer assessment rating (PAR) index with models versus photographs

BackgroundThe objectives of this study were to determine whether rating systems, such as the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) can be applied to intraoral photographs. MethodsModels and photographs of 50 cases were graded by 4 raters, and a 20% repeat of randomized cases was completed 2 weeks later. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess inter- and intra-rater agreements, as well as the level of agreement between the ratings on models and photographs. ResultsThe intra- and inter-rater agreements were considered good to excellent. The paired mean difference (model minus photo) for the PAR index and the ABO Discrepancy Index as a total was 2.405 and 1.156, respectively. Overjet was the subdomain that produced the highest differences between photos and models. The ABO- Discrepancy Index method on photographs was more reliable than the PAR index when grading pre-treatment and more-severe malocclusions. ConclusionsBoth methods can be used, but the choice depends on the purpose of the evaluation, and on consideration of the weaknesses and strengths of each relating to its use on photographs.

The Relationship between Posttreatment Smile Esthetics and the ABO Objective Grading System: Class I Extraction versus Non-Extraction Cases.

This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the components of the objective grading system developed by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) and smile esthetics in Class I extraction vs non-extraction cases. A total of 40 extraoral smile images of orthodontically treated (20 extraction and 20 non-extraction) cases in the age group of 13-30 years and Class I skeletal malocclusion with an average mandibular plane angle were selected. Smile images were rated only by the orthodontist, and this panel included 12 members. Scoring of post-treatment dental casts and panoramic radiographs of each patient was performed by 1 investigator per the guidelines of the ABO grading system. The Pearson correlation coefficient and logistic regression analysis were used to ascertain whether the scores of the ABO grading system could foretell whether a smile would be "attractive" or "unattractive." The correlation between all the criteria of the ABO grading system and attractiveness of the smile was extremely weak. The r values ranged from -0.53 to 0.37 for extraction cases and -0.63 to 0.003 for non-extraction cases (p>0.05). Neither individual parameters nor total scores of the ABO grading system could predict whether the smile was attractive or unattractive in either group. No correlation was found between post-treatment ABO grading and smile esthetics in patients with extraction or non-extraction. Hence, this study recommends that ancillary soft tissue variables have to be incorporated into the grading system to evaluate a smile.

Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems : Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria.

To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with alingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3MUnitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with alabial appliance (Victory series™, 3MUnitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). Atotal of 72patients were retrospectively analyzed. The complexity of each case was evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI), and orthodontic clinical outcomes were evaluated using the ABO Objective Grading System (cast-radiograph evaluation: C‑REval). The mean total ABO C‑REval score was 16 ± 9.1 in the labial appliance group and 12.7 ± 5.4 in lingual appliance group (p = 0.152). The mean total ABO-DI scores were 16.3 ± 7.3 and 15.4 ± 6.6 in the labial and lingual appliance groups, respectively (p = 0.445). A significant correlation was observed between the total DI and total C‑REval scores. In this particular study and in the hands of two experienced orthodontists, no differences in the finishing quality of orthodontic treatments using the lingual technique or the buccal appliance technique were found. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary in order to generalize these results.

Comparison of Stability of the Results of Orthodontic Treatment and Gingival Health between Hawley and Vacuum-formed Retainers

Aim: Retention is one of the stages of orthodontic treatment, which is an attempt to retain teeth in their corrected positions after active treatment with the use of fixed orthodontic appliances. The aim of the present study was to compare the stability of the results of orthodontic treatment and the gingival health between Hawley retainer (HR) and vacuum-formed retainer (VFR) with two different thicknesses. Materials and methods: In this randomized clinical trial, 66 patients undergoing comprehensive orthodontic treatment in a private office were evaluated after completion of treatment. The subjects were randomly assigned to three groups. At the end of orthodontic treatment, the subjects in all the groups received a fixed bonded retainer in the mandible; in the maxilla, group I received an HR, group II received a VFR with a thickness of 1.5 mm, and group III received a VFR with a thickness of 1 mm. The American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) index was used at the end of treatment (before the delivery of the retainers) and 6 months after the use of retainers to evaluate the stability of the results of orthodontic treatment. Gingival index (GI) was used at the two above-mentioned intervals to evaluate gingival health. The ABO-OGS measurements were carried out on dental casts by a clinician who was blinded to the types of retainers the patients wore. Data were analyzed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20, using proper statistical analyses. Results: Six months after the delivery of retainers, ABO-OGS and GI scores with the 1.5 mm VFR were higher than those in the two other groups, with no significant differences between the three groups. There were no significant differences between the ABO-OGS scores before the delivery of retainers and 6 months after the use of retainers in any of the study groups. In the HR and 1.5 mm VFR groups, there were significant differences in GI scores between the period before the delivery of the retainers and 6 months after their delivery; however, in the 1 mm VFR group, no significant differences were observed in GI scores between the two time intervals. Conclusion: Hawley retainer and 1 mm thick and 1.5 mm thick VFRs were equally effective in preserving and stabilizing the results of orthodontic treatment during the 6-month interval after the completion of orthodontic treatment. In addition, there were no significant differences between the three retainers in relation to gingival health. Clinical significance: The VFR might be a good alternative for HR due to its better esthetic appearance and greater popularity with orthodontic patients. Keywords: American Board of Orthodontics model grading system, American Board of Orthodontics objective frading system, Gingival index, Hawley retainers, Vacuum-formed retainers.

Treatment outcomes after extraction and nonextraction treatment evaluated with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system

A controversy exists regarding better treatment outcomes when patients treated with extractions and without extractions are evaluated. The aims of this study were to use the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) to evaluate and compare treatment outcomes in extraction vs nonextraction Class I patients and to determine whether the treatment choice was a significant predictor of success according to the ABO examination. Discriminant analysis was applied to a sample of 542 patients, and a borderline sample of 55 patients was obtained. Of these patients, 25 were treated with extractions and 30 without extraction of the 4 first premolars. Treatment results were then assessed using the 8 variables of the ABO-OGS. The total scores ranged from 11 to 41 (mean, 27.04; SD, 6.3) for the extraction group and from 16 to 44 (mean, 29.07; SD, 7.1) for the nonextraction group. The variable of buccolingual inclination had the highest scores in both groups (8.44 [SD, 3.3] for the extraction group; 8.90 [SD, 3.8] for the nonextraction group; mean difference, 0.46; 95% CI, -1.44, 2.37; P=0.63). However, no statistically significant intergroup differences were found, either between the scores of the 8 ABO-OGS variables or between the total ABO-OGS scores. Regarding the success rates of the ABO examination, no significant difference was found between the 2 treatment groups (odds ratio, 2.55; 95% CI, 0.74, 0.85; P=0.14). For a patient with a borderline Class I malocclusion, extraction and nonextraction treatment can achieve the same quality of results as assessed by the ABO-OGS. Additionally, in these Class I patients, the treatment modality (extraction or nonextraction) is not a significant predictor of passing the ABO examination.

Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliabilities of 3-dimensional orthodontic digital setups

The use of digital orthodontic setups has grown quickly. The purpose of this study was to test the interexaminer and intraexaminer reliabilities of 3-dimensional orthodontic digital setups in OrthoCAD (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif). Six clinicians made digital orthodontic setups on 6 digital models twice, with a minimum interval of 2weeks and a maximum interval of 4weeks. OrthoCAD software was used, and treatment goals were all set the same according to the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS). Differences between the 72 setups were measured with the ABO-OGS scores. In comparing setups 1 and 2, the intraexaminer mean absolute differences in total ABO-OGS scores varied statistically significantly between 2.17 and 6.00 points. Interexaminer mean absolute differences varied statistically significantly between 4.77 and 5.56 points. All but 1 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value showed significant excellent agreement (ICC,>0.8) for intraexaminer reliability. One ICC value was insignificant and showed moderate (ICC, 0.4-0.6) agreement. Interexaminer reliability showed significant good (ICC, 0.6-0.8) agreement. There is a significant difference in ABO-OGS score when using OrthoCAD. Although this difference was low, it could be clinically significant. Interexaminer and intraexaminer reliabilities are not redundant for general use of the 3-dimensional orthodontic digital setup in OrthoCAD.

Comparison of Treatment Outcome Assessment for Class I Malocclusion Patients: Peer Assessment Rating versus American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System

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.

Relationship between pretreatment case complexity and orthodontic clinical outcomes determined by the American Board of Orthodontics criteria

To evaluate the relationship between pretreatment case complexity and orthodontic treatment outcomes. The total sample contained 1693 cases (853 females and 840 males, mean age = 16.3 years) from the archives of postgraduate orthodontic clinics. The complexity of each case was evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI), and orthodontic clinical outcomes were evaluated using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS). Only one investigator evaluated all cases. Multivariate analysis of variance, correlation analysis, and multiple variable regression analysis were used for statistical evaluation (P < .05 as significant). The mean total DI score was 16.2, and the mean total OGS score was 18. No significant correlation was found between the total DI and the total OGS scores. However, pretreatment overbite, lateral open bite, crowding, buccal posterior crossbite, and other components affected the total OGS score significantly. The highest percentage of passing OGS values was found for cases of medium-level complexity. This retrospective study of university clinical records showed that the posttreatment clinical outcomes were significantly affected from pretreatment case complexity. Posttreatment alignment was affected significantly from pretreatment buccal posterior crossbite and cephalometric values. Similarly, posttreatment buccolingual inclination was affected from pretreatment anterior open bite, occlusion, and other factors. Occlusal contacts were affected significantly from pretreatment lingual posterior crossbite and other factors. In addition, we determined that posttreatment root angulations were affected significantly from pretreatment crowding values.

Validation of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System for assessing the treatment outcomes of Chinese patients

Orthodontics in China has developed rapidly, but there is no standard index of treatment outcomes. We assessed the validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS) for the classification of treatment outcomes in Chinese patients. We randomly selected 108 patients who completed treatment between July 2005 and September 2008 in 6 orthodontic treatment centers across China. Sixty-nine experienced Chinese orthodontists made subjective assessments of the end-of-treatment casts for each patient. Three examiners then used the ABO-OGS to measure the casts. Pearson correlation analysis and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis were conducted to evaluate the correspondence between the ABO-OGS cast measurements and the orthodontists' subjective assessments. The average subjective grading scores were highly correlated with the ABO-OGS scores (r = 0.7042). Four of the 7 study cast components of the ABO-OGS score-occlusal relationship, overjet, interproximal contact, and alignment-were statistically significantly correlated with the judges' subjective assessments. Together, these 4 accounted for 58% of the variability in the average subjective grading scores. The ABO-OGS cutoff score for cases that the judges deemed satisfactory was 16 points; the corresponding cutoff score for cases that the judges considered acceptable was 21 points. The ABO-OGS is a valid index for the assessment of treatment outcomes in Chinese patients. By comparing the objective scores on this modification of the ABO-OGS with the mean subjective assessment of a panel of highly qualified Chinese orthodontists, a cutoff point for satisfactory treatment outcome was defined as 16 points or fewer, with scores of 16 to 21 points denoting less than satisfactory but still acceptable treatment. Cases that scored greater than 21 points were considered unacceptable.

Assessment of clinical outcomes of Roth and MBT bracket prescription using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System

Background:There is always a need to assess whether small changes in bracket prescription can lead to visually detectable differences in tooth positions. However, with little clinical evidence to show advantages of any of the popularly used bracket systems, orthodontists are forced to make clinical decisions with little scientific guidance.Aim:To compare the orthodontic cases finished with Roth and MBT prescription using American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS).Settings and Design:Department of Orthodontics, Post-graduate dental college, retrospective cross-sectional study.Materials and Methods:Forty patients selected were divided into two groups of 20 patients each finished with straight wire appliance using Roth and MBT prescription, respectively. The examiner ability was assessed and calibrated by one of the ABO certified clinician to grade cases using the OGS.Statistical Analysis:Unpaired student t-test was used and P < 0.05 was accepted as significant.Results and Conclusions:MBT bracket group had a lower score of 2.60 points in buccolingual inclination and lower score of 1.10 points in occlusal contact category that was statistically significant when compared with Roth group. The difference in total ABO-OGS score was 2.65 points showing that the outcome for the MBT prescription was better than that of the Roth prescription, which is statistically significant, but with little or no clinical significance. It can be concluded that use of either one of the Roth and MBT bracket prescriptions have no impact to the overall clinical outcome and quality of treatment entirely depends on clinician judgment and experience.

Clinical Outcomes of 0.018-Inch and 0.022-Inch Bracket Slot Using the ABO Objective Grading System

To determine if there is a significant difference in the clinical outcomes of cases treated with 0.018-inch brackets vs 0.022-inch brackets according to the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Objective Grading System (OGS). Treatment time and the ABO-OGS standards in alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationships, occlusal contacts, interproximal contacts, and root angulations were used to compare clinical outcomes between a series of 828 consecutively completed orthodontic cases (2005-2008) treated in a university graduate orthodontic clinic with 0.018-inch- and 0.022-inch-slot brackets. A two-sample t-test showed a significantly shorter treatment time and lower ABO-OGS score in four categories (alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, overjet, and root angulations), as well as lower total ABO-OGS total score, with the 0.018-inch brackets. The ANCOVA-adjusting for covariants of discrepancy index, age, gender, and treatment time-showed that the 0.018-inch brackets scored significantly lower than the 0.022-inch brackets in both the alignment/rotations category and total ABO-OGS score. There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in treatment times and in total ABO-OGS scores in favor of 0.018-inch brackets as compared with the 0.022-inch brackets in a university graduate orthodontic clinic (2005-2008).

The Relationship between Posttreatment Smile Esthetics and the ABO Objective Grading System

To evaluate the correlations between the components of the Objective Grading System developed by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) and smile esthetics. The clinical photographs of 48 orthodontically treated patients were rated by a panel of 25 experienced orthodontists (15 men and 10 women) and 20 parents of orthodontic patients (eight men and 12 women). One of the investigators, a director of the ABO, scored the posttreatment dental casts and panoramic radiographs of all patients according to the guidelines of the Objective Grading System. The relationship between the occlusal outcome and perceived smile attractiveness of the subjects were evaluated by a Pearson product-moment correlation. Logistic regression was used to determine whether the individual component or total combined scores of the ABO Grading System could predict whether a smile would be considered "attractive" or "unattractive" by the panel of raters. Extremely weak relationships were found among all factors of the ABO Objective Grading System and perceived smile attractiveness (r values ranging from -0.11 to 0.14; P > .05). As derived from logistic regression equations, neither total scores nor individual components of the ABO Grading system could predict attractive or unattractive smiles. This study suggests that additional criteria might be incorporated into the assessment of overall orthodontic treatment outcomes, including variables evaluating the smile.

Treatment complexity index for assessing the relationship of treatment duration and outcomes in a graduate orthodontics clinic

Clinical cases completed by the Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD) graduating orthodontic classes of 2004, 2005, and 2006 were assessed to determine factors that affect orthodontic treatment duration. The sample consisted of 455 consecutively finished patients who received comprehensive treatment in the full permanent dentition. They included optimally finished and prematurely terminated (early debond) patients. The American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) discrepancy index (DI) was used to evaluate the severity of the pretreatment malocclusion. A specifically designed treatment complexity index (TCI) was used to evaluate complexity based on treatment modalities. The ABO objective grading system (OGS) and the IUSD comprehensive clinical assessment (CCA) were used to evaluate the clinical outcome for all patients. The average treatment duration was 29 months. The mean DI, OGS, and CCA scores were 15.30, 23.34, and 4.48, respectively. Increased treatment length was associated with 0.022-in slot size brackets, percent of treatment spent in nickel-titanium wires, Class II malocclusion, increased DI score, and increased TCI score. In evaluating outcomes for 2004 through 2006, there was no significant relationship between treatment duration and clinical outcome as measured by the OGS and CCA scores. The DI and TCI are sensitive prospective indicators of treatment duration. After the introduction of a rigorous clinical protocol for controlling poor outcomes, because of patients exceeding predicted treatment times, the clinical results for this sample are independent of treatment duration.

Treatment outcomes in a graduate orthodontic clinic for cases defined by the American Board of Orthodontics malocclusion categories

The American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) discrepancy index (DI) quantifies the severity of a malocclusion. The ABO objective grading system (OGS) assesses the quality of orthodontic finishing. Indiana University's comprehensive clinical assessment (CCA) supplements the OGS to provide an instrument to determine clinical outcomes. The purposes of this article were to (1) determine whether treatment outcome is related to the type of malocclusion as defined by the ABO classification, (2) determine the fraction of finished orthodontic cases in the graduate orthodontics clinic that are within the ABO standards for passing the phase III clinical examination, (3) evaluate the contribution of each component of the OGS and the CCA to the total OGS and CCA scores, (4) determine the percentage of finished cases that meet the ABO case category specifications, and (5) identify problem areas to improve the quality of treatment for challenging malocclusions. Three hundred eighty-two cases that satisfied requirements for 8 of the ABO's malocclusion categories were selected from 989 consecutively finished cases from 1998 through 2003. They were evaluated by using the OGS, the CCA, and the DI. The average OGS score was 32.64, the average CCA score was 5.62, and the average DI score was 20.94. There was no significant difference in the OGS and the CCA scores among the categories. Categories 2, 5, 7, and 8 had a DI score that was significantly higher than the average for the entire sample. The OGS and CCA scores were positively correlated with the DI score, meaning that complex malocclusions are challenging to finish well. The most points lost for the OGS and the CCA were for occlusal contacts and treatment efficiency (length of treatment relative to the result), respectively. The fewest points lost were for interproximal contacts and vertical control, respectively. Furthermore, prematurely terminated cases (early debonds) had longer treatment times and higher (worse) OGS and CCA scores. This study demonstrates problems in treating complex malocclusions in a graduate orthodontics program and suggests methods for increasing the quality of clinical outcomes.

Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system

The objectives of this study were to examine the relationships among 4 indexes that are used to score orthodontic treatment need and outcome, and to determine whether 1 index could replace the other 3. The index of complexity, outcome, and need (ICON), the dental aesthetic index (DAI), the peer assessment rating (PAR) index, and the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS) were studied. The use of the ICON is desirable because it is faster to use than separate indexes for assessing different treatment facets. One hundred pretreatment and posttreatment study models were randomly selected from an accredited graduate orthodontic clinic at University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Ill. The sample was assessed by using the PAR index, the DAI, the ABO-OGS, and the ICON. The data were analyzed descriptively and the relationships evaluated by using the Spearman rank order correlation coefficient. The study showed a significant correlation between the DAI and the ICON with respect to treatment need (r = .5523, P <.001). The PAR index and the ABO-OGS had significant correlations with the ICON for treatment outcome (pretreatment PAR vs ICON, r = .6840, P <.001; posttreatment PAR vs ICON, r = .3466, P <.001; ABO-OGS vs ICON, r = .2654, P <.01). The ICON can be used in place of the PAR and the ABO-OGS for assessing treatment outcome and in place of the DAI for assessing treatment need.