Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-01-2021 | Original Article

Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems

Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria

Authors: Dr. Fadi Ata-Ali, Dr. Javier Ata-Ali, Alicia Lanuza-Garcia, Marcela Ferrer-Molina, Maria Melo, Eliseo Plasencia

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with a lingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with a labial appliance (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA).

Methods

A total of 72 patients 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‑R Eval).

Results

The mean total ABO C‑R Eval 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‑R Eval scores.

Conclusions

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.

Ponduri S, Pringle A, Illing HM, Brennan PA (2011) Peer assessment rating (PAR) index outcomes for orthodontic and orthognathic surgery patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2010.03.009CrossRefPubMed

Chalabi O, Preston CB, Al-Jewair TS, Tabbaa S (2015) A comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes using the Objective Grading System (OGS) and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Aust Orthod J 31:157–164PubMed

Bichara LM, Aragón ML, Brandão GA, Normando D (2016) Factors influencing orthodontic treatment time for non-surgical Class III malocclusion. J Appl Oral Sci. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150353CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cansunar HA, Uysal T (2014) Relationship between pretreatment case complexity and orthodontic clinical outcomes determined by the American Board of Orthodontics criteria. Angle Orthod 84:974–979. https://doi.org/10.2319/010114-001.1CrossRefPubMed

Chaison ET, Liu X, Tuncay OC (2011) The quality of treatment in the adult orthodontic patient as judged by orthodontists and measured by the Objective Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139(4 Suppl):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.018CrossRef

Struble BH, Huang GJ (2010) Comparison of prospectively and retrospectively selected American Board of Orthodontics cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137(1):6.e1–6.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.016CrossRef

Parrish LD, Roberts WE, Maupome G, Stewart KT, Bandy RW, Kula KS (2011) The relationship between the ABO discrepancy index and treatment duration in a graduate orthodontic clinic. Angle Orthod 81(2):192–197. https://doi.org/10.2319/062210-341.1CrossRefPubMed

Liu S, Oh H, Chambers DW, Baumrind S, Xu T (2017) Validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index and the Peer Assessment Rating Index for comprehensive evaluation of malocclusion severity. Orthod Craniofac Res 20:140–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12195CrossRefPubMed

Campbell CL, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK Jr, Qi R (2007) Treatment outcomes in a graduate orthodontic clinic for cases defined by the American Board of Orthodontics malocclusion categories. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:822–829CrossRef

10.

Vu J, Pancherz H, Schwestka-Polly R, Wiechmann D (2012) Correction of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions using a completely customized lingual appliance and the Herbst device. J Orofac Orthop 73:225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0077-0CrossRefPubMed

11.

Deguchi T, Terao F, Aonuma T, Kataoka T, Sugawara Y, Yamashiro T, Takano-Yamamoto T (2015) Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases. Angle Orthod 85:400–407. https://doi.org/10.2319/031014-173.1CrossRefPubMed

12.

Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M, Initiative STROBE (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 18:805–835CrossRef

13.

Ata-Ali F, Plasencia E, Lanuza-Garcia A, Ferrer-Molina M, Melo M, Ata-Ali J (2019) Effectiveness of lingual versus labial fixed appliances in adults according to the Peer Assessment Rating index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 155:819–825CrossRef

14.

Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Bills ED (1998) Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114:589–599CrossRef

15.

American Board of Orthodontics (2019) https://www.americanboardortho.com/media/5292/121218aboclinicalexamstudyguide.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2019

16.

Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, Greco PM, English JD, James RD (2004) The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125:270–278CrossRef

17.

Dahlberg G (1940) Errors of estimation. In: Statistical methods for medical and biological students, 1st edn. George Allen & Unwin LTD, London, pp 122–132

18.

Fleiss JL (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. John Wiley, New York, pp 241–260

19.

Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans CA, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S (2007) Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 13:51–56CrossRef

20.

Detterline DA, Isikbay SC, Brizendine EJ, Kula KS (2010) Clinical outcomes of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot using the ABO objective grading system. Angle Orthod 80:528–532. https://doi.org/10.2319/060309-315.1CrossRefPubMed

21.

Fujita K (1979) New orthodontic treatment with lingual bracket mushroom arch wire appliance. Am J Orthod 76:657–675CrossRef

22.

Ata-Ali F, Ata-Ali J, Ferrer-Molina M, Cobo T, De Carlos F, Cobo J (2016) Adverse effects of lingual and buccal orthodontic techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 149:820–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.11.031CrossRefPubMed

23.

Pulfer RM, Drake CT, Maupome G, Eckert GJ, Roberts WE (2009) The association of malocclusion complexity and orthodontic treatment outcomes. Angle Orthod 79:468–472. https://doi.org/10.2319/042308-227.1CrossRefPubMed

24.

Cameron D (2010) The relationship between American Board of Orthodontics pretreatment dental cast Discrepancy Index scores and posttreatment dental cast Objective Grading System scores. Master’s thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School of Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

25.

Papageorgiou SN, Koretsi V, Jäger A (2017) Bias from historical control groups used in orthodontic research: a meta-epidemiological study. Eur J Orthod 39:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw035CrossRefPubMed

26.

Holmes A (1992) The subjective need and demand for orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 19:287–297CrossRef

27.

Rosvall MD, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski J, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM (2009) Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:276.e1–276.12CrossRef

Title: Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems
Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria
Authors: Dr. Fadi Ata-Ali
Dr. Javier Ata-Ali
Alicia Lanuza-Garcia
Marcela Ferrer-Molina
Maria Melo
Eliseo Plasencia
Publication date: 01-01-2021
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00248-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems

Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Mitteilungen der DGKFO

Impact of household vinegar on calculus removal and mechanical properties of orthodontic resin

Stainless steel and NiTi torque archwires and apical root resorption

Management of skeletal class II malocclusion using bimaxillary skeletal anchorage supported fixed functional appliances

Correction: Effects of isotretinoin on new bone formation after maxillary sutural expansion

Comparative evaluation of periodontal effects and survival rates of Memotain and five-stranded bonded retainers