Description
Presentation Blocks: 03-22-2018 - Thursday - 11:00 AM - 12:15 PM

Title: Treatment Outcomes in Postgraduate Orthodontic Clinical Programs: Connecting the Dots

Authors:

Thikriat Al-Jewair (Presenter)
University at Buffalo

Valerie Snodgrass, University at Buffalo

Abstract:

Objectives: 1) To assess treatment outcomes of finished cases at the SUNY Buffalo orthodontic clinic using the ABO Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (ABO C-R Eval) and Comprehensive Clinical Assessment (CCA) methods; 2) To assess relation between treatment duration, treatment outcomes, and ABO Discrepancy Index (DI) score; and 3) To compare treatment outcomes across postgraduate orthodontic programs and introduce the standard protocol model.

Methods: 287 patients with complete records were selected for inclusion. Independent chart reviews were conducted to gather demographic information and pre-treatment diagnostic variables. Post-treatment models and panoramic radiographs were graded with the ABO C-R Eval system and the CCA method. Outcomes were compared to previously published studies and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine associations between variables studied.

Results: The mean age in the study was 15.48±6.30 years. 79 patients (27.5%) had a pre-treatment ABO-DI score less than 10 points, 134 patients (46.7%) from 10 to 20 points, and 74 patients (25.8%) had a score greater than 20 points. The mean post-treatment ABO C-R score was 29.10 ± 8.59 points and the highest scores were recorded for occlusal contacts and buccolingual inclination. 130 (45%) patients were treated to “board quality” (< 27 points). The mean CCA score was 3.36±2.05 points and the highest scores were in dental esthetics and periodontium management. Higher ABO-DI scores were weakly but statistically significantly correlated with longer treatment times (r=0.258; p<0.001). Poorer treatment outcomes were significantly correlated with longer treatment times. Treatment outcomes are comparable across programs. The standard protocol model is needed to address common clinical problems in postgraduate orthodontic clinics.

Conclusions: Treatment outcomes in the different postgraduate orthodontic programs are comparable. Specific areas needing improvement were identified to increase treatment quality.

Schedule