Objective treatment outcome assessment of a completely customized lingual appliance: A retrospective study

Affiliations


Abstract

Objective: To assess the outcome quality of subjects treated with a completely customized lingual appliance (CCLA) in a postgraduate university program, using the ABO Objective Grading System (OGS), by testing the null-hypothesis of a significant proportion of post-treatment cases exceeding an adjusted 'exam failure' threshold value of OGS=24.

Materials and methods: This retrospective single-arm study included 66 consecutively debonded CCLA cases (m/f 19/47; mean age: 25.1±9 years) treated at Hannover Medical School (MHH, Hannover, Germany). The discrepancy index (DI) was assessed on initial plaster casts. The OGS of the cast-radiograph evaluation was scored for both set-up and post-treatment casts, including the seven components of alignment/rotation, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships and interproximal contacts, to parameterize differences between those.

Results: DI score distribution (≥20, <20) was 25 (37.9%)/41 (62.1%) subjects. Mean initial DI was 17.3±8.5. Mean set-up OGS was 10.4±4.4 (min-max: 3-21), mean final OGS was 17.7±5.9 (min-max: 7-33), and the difference 7.3 (post-treatment - set-up) was statistically significant (p<0.0001; 95% CI [5.8, 8.7]). The null-hypothesis was rejected: A statistically significant proportion of the final casts (n=58; 87.8%) scored below OGS=24 by exact binomial test (P<0.0001; 95% CI [77.5%, 94.6%]). The rate of a final OGS score<24 was not significantly different (P=0.98) between both DI (≥20, <20) groups.

Conclusions: The outcome quality of the CCLA treatment in this postgraduate university setting was high and therefore sufficient for a vast majority of treated cases to pass the ABO-OGS clinical examination.

Keywords: American Board of Orthodontics model grading system; American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system; CCLA; Completely Customized Lingual Appliance; Fixed orthodontics; Lingual orthodontics; Outcome; Set-up.


Similar articles

The Herbst appliance combined with a completely customized lingual appliance: A retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System.

Mujagic M, Pandis N, Fleming PS, Katsaros C.Int Orthod. 2020 Dec;18(4):732-738. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2020.07.002. Epub 2020 Aug 21.PMID: 32839142

Clinical outcomes of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot using the ABO objective grading system.

Detterline DA, Isikbay SC, Brizendine EJ, Kula KS.Angle Orthod. 2010 May;80(3):528-32. doi: 10.2319/060309-315.1.PMID: 20050748 Free PMC article.

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans CA, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Jan;131(1):51-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.042.PMID: 17208106

Outcomes of comprehensive fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological overview.

Papageorgiou SN, Höchli D, Eliades T.Korean J Orthod. 2017 Nov;47(6):401-413. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.6.401. Epub 2017 Sep 29.PMID: 29090128 Free PMC article. Review.

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children.

Thiruvenkatachari B, Harrison JE, Worthington HV, O'Brien KD.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 13;(11):CD003452. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003452.pub3.PMID: 24226169 Updated. Review.


KMEL References