The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of Outcome of Orthodontic Treatment in Context to Posttreatment Stability: A Retrospective Analysis

Ravi Krishna Kanuru, Sukhpreet S Mangat, Gaurav Sepolia, Santosh K Subudhi, Mohil M Asnani, Anupam Bansal

Citation Information : Kanuru RK, Mangat SS, Sepolia G, Subudhi SK, Asnani MM, Bansal A. Evaluation of Outcome of Orthodontic Treatment in Context to Posttreatment Stability: A Retrospective Analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (7):587-591.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1894

Published Online: 00-07-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

One of the main aims of orthodontic treatment is the improvement of esthetics along with enhancement of functions of the orofacial regions. Complications are observed even after final completion of the orthodontic treatment due to relapse and loss of stability. Hence, we retrospectively analyzed angle class I malocclusion cases to study the correlation of outcome of orthodontic treatment and posttreatment stability.

Materials and methods

A total of 100 patients were included in this retrospective analysis, which accounted for the patients reporting to the department of orthodontics from 2013 to 2015 with angle class I malocclusion. Pretreatment, posttreatment, and postretention casts of the patients were made and analyzed. The Richmond et al criteria was used to evaluate peer assessment rating (PAR) index and Little irregularity index, followed by scoring with American weight. Measurement of Pearson's coefficient was done to calculate the p-value. p-value of less than 0.05 was considered as significant.

Results

No significant amount of alteration was seen in the systematic errors of Little index and PAR index, while casual errors were also within the normal range. While comparing the PAR index at pretreatment and posttreatment phases, statistically significant results were obtained, whereas in case of Little index at same time intervals, scores showed nonsignificant results.

Conclusion

Even after delivering ideal orthodontic treatment, stability of the treatment is still not ensured until unless posttreatment follow-up is properly maintained.

How to cite this article

Kanuru RK, Mangat SS, Sepolia G, Subudhi SK, Asnani MM, Bansal A. Evaluation of Outcome of Orthodontic Treatment in Context to Posttreatment Stability: A Retrospective Analysis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):587-591.


PDF Share
  1. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 4th ed. St Louis (MO): Elsevier Mosby; 2005. p. 4.
  2. Mouth breathing in allergic children: its relationship to dentofacial development. Am J Orthod 1983 Apr;83(4):334-340.
  3. A long-term assessment of the mechanical retroclination of the lower incisors. Angle Orthod 1967 Jul;37(3):165-174.
  4. Postmortens in posttreatment adjustment. Am J Orthod 1966;52:331-352.
  5. Postretention relapse of mandibular anterior crowding in patients treated without mandibular premolar extraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004 Apr;125(4):480-487.
  6. Long-term stability of Class I premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003 Sep;124(3):277-287.
  7. A long-term evaluation of treated Class II division 2 malocclusions: a retrospective study model analysis. Eur J Orthod 1999 Aug;21(4):377-386.
  8. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment: University of Washington studies. Semin Orthod 1999 Sep;5(3):191-204.
  9. Fixed orthodontic appliance therapy and its impact on oral health-related quality of life in Chinese patients. Angle Orthod 2010 Jan;80(1):49-53.
  10. Attitudes and compliance of pre-adolescent children during early treatment of Class II malocclusion. Clin Orthod Res 1998 Aug;1(1):20-28.
  11. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992 Apr;14(2):125-139.
  12. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975 Nov;68(5):554-563.
  13. The validation of the Peer Assessment Rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995 Feb;107(2):172-176.
  14. Rapid maxillary expansion followed by fixed appliances: a longterm evaluation of changes in arch dimensions. Angle Orthod 2003 Aug;73(4):344-353.
  15. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988 May;93(5):423-428.
  16. Mandibular second premolar extraction—postretention evaluation of stability and relapse. Angle Orthod 1991 Summer;61(2):133-144.
  17. Stability of orthodontic treatment outcome: follow-up until 10 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999 Mar;115(3):300-304.
  18. Evaluation of orthodontic results—a discussion of some methodological aspects. Angle Orthod 1991 Winter;61(4):261-266.
  19. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment – first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981 Oct;80(4):349-365.
  20. Occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 1998 Oct;68(5):439-444.
  21. Evaluation of efficiency of the Class II treatment without extraction and with extraction of two maxillary premolars [Dissertation – Master – Bauru Dental School USP]. Bauru; 2004.
  22. Evaluation of treatment and posttreatment changes by the PAR Index. Eur J Orthod 1997 Jun;19(3):279-288.
  23. Orthodontic outcomes assessment using the peer assessment rating index. Angle Orthod 2001 Jun;71(3):164-169.
  24. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992;14(3):180-187.
  25. Personal audit in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1993 May;20(2):135-144.
  26. Orthodontic treatment standards in Norway. Eur J Orthod 1993 Feb;15(1):7-15.
  27. Stability and relapse of dental arch alignment. Br J Orthod 1990 Aug;17(3):235-241.
  28. Long-term posttreatment changes measured by the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005 Apr;127(4):444-450.
  29. Treatment outcome for a sample of patients with Class II division 1 malocclusion treated at a regional hospital orthodontic department. J Ir Dent Assoc 1998;44(3):67-69.
  30. Agerelated long-term posttreatment occlusal and arch changes. Angle Orthod 2010 Mar;80(2):247-253.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.