The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Improvement and Completion of Outcome index: A new assessment system for quality of orthodontic treatment

  • Hong, Mihee (Department of Orthodontics, Uijeongbu St. Mary's Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kook, Yoon-Ah (Department of Orthodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Myeng-Ki (Department of Dental Services Management and Informatics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Il (Department of Oral Pathology, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Kim, Hong-Gee (Department of Dental Services Management and Informatics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Baek, Seung-Hak (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2016.03.15
  • Accepted : 2016.06.10
  • Published : 2016.07.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Given the considerable disagreement between the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index and the American Board of Orthodontics Cast-Radiograph Evaluation, we aimed to develop a novel assessment system-the Improvement and Completion of Outcome (ICO) index-to evaluate the outcome of orthodontic treatment. Methods: Sixteen criteria from 4 major categories were established to represent the pretreatment malocclusion status, as well as the degree of improvement and level of completion of outcome during/after treatment: dental relationship (arch length discrepancy, irregularity, U1-SN, and IMPA); anteroposterior relationship (overjet, right and left molar position, ANB); vertical relationship (anterior overbite, anterior open-bite, lateral open-bite, SN-MP); and transverse relationship (dental midline discrepancy, chin point deviation, posterior cross-bite, occlusal plane cant). The score for each criterion was defined from 0 or -1 (worst) to 5 (ideal value or normal occlusion) in gradations of 1. The sum of the scores in each category indicates the area and extent of the problems. Improvement and completion percentages were estimated based on the pre- and post-treatment total scores and the maximum total score. If the completion percentage exceeded 80%, treatment outcome was considered successful. Results: Two cases, Class I malocclusion and skeletal Class III malocclusion, are presented to represent the assessment procedure using the ICO index. The difference in the level of improvement and completion of treatment outcome can be clearly explained by using 2 percentage values. Conclusions: Thus, the ICO index enables the evaluation of the quality of orthodontic treatment objectively and consecutively throughout the entire treatment process.

Keywords

References

  1. Gottlieb EL. Grading your orthodontic treatment results. J Clin Orthod 1975;9:155-61.
  2. Shaw WC, Richmond S, O'Brien KD. The use of occlusal indices: a European perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70151-6
  3. Kokich VG. How good are you? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:1 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.05.001
  4. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125-39. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.2.125
  5. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:180-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.3.180
  6. DeGuzman L, Bahiraei D, Vig KW, Vig PS, Weyant RJ, O'Brien K. The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:172-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70133-8
  7. al Yami EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van't Hof MA. Occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1998;68:439-44.
  8. Lieber WS, Carlson SK, Baumrind S, Poulton DR. Clinical use of the ABO-Scoring Index: reliability and subtraction frequency. Angle Orthod 2003;73:556-64.
  9. Fox NA, Chapple JR. Measuring failure of orthodontic treatment: a comparison of outcome indicators. J Orthod 2004;31:319-22. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225202635
  10. Deguchi T, Honjo T, Fukunaga T, Miyawaki S, Roberts WE, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical assessment of orthodontic outcomes with the peer assessment rating, discrepancy index, objective grading system, and comprehensive clinical assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:434-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.030
  11. Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:248-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.045
  12. Arruda AO. Occlusal indexes as judged by subjective opinions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:671-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.058
  13. Son WS, Cha KS, Chung DH, Kim TW. Quantitative evaluation and affecting factors of post-treatment relapse tendency. Korean J Orthod 2011;41:154-63. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.3.154
  14. Hong MH, Kook YA, Baek SH, Kim MK. Comparison of treatment outcome assessment for class I malocclusion patients: peer assessment rating versus American board of orthodontics-objective grading system. J Korean Dent Sci 2014;7:6-15. https://doi.org/10.5856/JKDS.2014.7.1.6
  15. Lee SM, Lee JW. Computerized occlusal analysis: correlation with occlusal indexes to assess the outcome of orthodontic treatment or the severity of malocculusion. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:27-35. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.27
  16. Hinman C. The Dental Practice Board. Orthodontics--the current status. Br J Orthod 1995;22:287-90. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.22.3.287
  17. Roberts CT, Richmond S. The design and analysis of reliability studies for the use of epidemiological and audit indices in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1997;24:139-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/24.2.139
  18. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:589-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70179-9
  19. Hong MH. A self-assessment system for assuring the quality of orthodontic treatment outcome [PhD dissertation]. Seoul: Seoul National University; 2015.
  20. Huang GJ, Richmond S, Vig KWL. Evidence-based orthodontics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2011.
  21. Baek SH, Yang WS. A soft tissue analysis on facial esthetics of Korean young adults. Korean J Orthod 1991;21:131-70.

Cited by

  1. A Comparison of class I malocclusion treatment outcomes with and without extractions using an ABO grading system for dental casts and radiographs vol.50, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v50.i3.p144-148