Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases

Deguchi, Toru; Terao, Fumie; Aonuma, Tomo; Kataoka, Tomoki; Sugawara, Yasutake; Yamashiro, Takashi; Takano‐Yamamoto, Teruko

doi:10.2319/031014-173.1

Cited by 30 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They did find that lingual patients had significantly higher scores in root angulation compared to labial patients [17]. This contrasts with the results of our analysis of OGS subcategories, with only the buccolingual inclination subcategory having a significant difference.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…While the number of studies comparing the quality of treatment outcome between CAD/CAM lingual systems and labial systems is low, our results do agree with a recently published study which also found no overall difference in OGS [17]. Deguchi, et al created matched pairs of 24 lingual patients and 25 labial patients with Class II malocclusions requiring extraction of four premolars.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Study of the Quality of Finish of Lingual versus Labial Bracket Systems As Measured By the Objective Grading System: A Retrospective Study in a University Orthodontic Clinic

2019

JODH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purposes of this study were to determine the quality of final orthodontic treatment outcome and average treatment time with fixed lingual brackets compared to labial brackets. Our hypothesis was that labial fixed appliances produce a higher quality of final treatment outcome, and a shorter average treatment time compared to lingual fixed appliances. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study of matched pairs. Records of twenty subjects treated with lingual appliances were included. These were paired with twenty patient records of subjects in fixed labial appliances with matching initial discrepancy index (DI) (±5 points), Angle classification (within one-half step), number of extracted teeth, and age. Final models were scored using the eight criteria of the American Board of Orthodontics’ Objective Grading System (OGS) and treatment time was recorded in number of days. Results: The mean difference in OGS scores between groups was 2.00 ± 8.89 points with a mean OGS score of the labial and lingual fixed appliance groups of 21.6 ± 7.45 and 19.6 ± 6.43, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.33). Lingual subjects’ treatment time was an average of 4.25 ± 213.78 days less compared to their matched labial subjects. This difference was not significant (p = 0.93). A statistically significant difference was found in the buccolingual inclination subcategory of the OGS. The mean difference in the buccolingual inclination score of lingual subjects was 1.90 ± 3.52 points higher than labial subjects (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Lingual fixed appliance subjects had no significant difference in treatment time and / or treatment outcome as measured by OGS when paired with labial fixed appliance subjects, however, they did have significantly higher buccolingual inclination discrepancies.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

A Study of the Quality of Finish of Lingual versus Labial Bracket Systems As Measured By the Objective Grading System: A Retrospective Study in a University Orthodontic Clinic

2019

JODH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After reading titles, abstracts, and application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 87 studies were examined in their full-text forms. From these, 16 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the review and for qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis (6,(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32). The flow chart of study selection together with reasons for exclusion is provided in Figure 1.…”

Section: Literature Flowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of lingual orthodontic treatment: a systematic review

Mistakidis

Katib

Vasilakos³

et al. 2015

European Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review showed encouraging results on the clinical outcome of lingual orthodontic treatment, especially in regards to the achievement of individualized treatment goals and the reduction of decalcifications on the bonded surfaces of the teeth. However, additional well-designed prospective clinical trials with larger samples are needed to confirm those findings. Several aspects of lingual orthodontic treatment were difficult to be conclusively evaluated due to the study design, the heterogeneity, the small samples sizes, and the high risk of bias seen in the majority of the included studies.

show abstract

“…Clinical outcomes of orthodontic treatment can be measured aesthetically and functionally through tooth alignment and occlusion . However, the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment can be difficult to measure or quantify .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical outcomes of orthodontic treatment can be measured aesthetically and functionally through tooth alignment and occlusion. [1][2][3][4] However, the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment can be difficult to measure or quantify. 5 Moreover, the treatment outcome may require a long period of time before its effectiveness becomes visually noticeable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Salivary protein biomarkers associated with orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review

Allen

Edelmann

Abdulmajeed

et al. 2019

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Structured Abstract Objective Saliva can provide a non‐invasive approach to indicate changes in the oral and systemic conditions. Salivary proteomics allows the discovery of new protein biomarkers associated with certain conditions. The effectiveness and physiological effects of orthodontic tooth movement in theory can be measured using salivary protein biomarkers. Setting and Sample Population This study applied a systematic review to analyse current literature to define and summarize salivary biomarkers associated with orthodontic tooth movement identified by mass spectrometry proteomics and other protein detection techniques. Materials and Methods Peer‐reviewed articles published through the 15th of November 2018 via the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Dentistry & Oral Sciences databases were reviewed. Only studies analysing protein biomarkers in saliva samples collected from human subjects associated with orthodontic treatments were included. Results Out of 482 articles, 7 studies were selected. Sample size ranged from 3 to 72 subjects. Minor variations of unstimulated whole saliva sample collection protocol were noted. Mass spectrometry proteomics and ELISA represented the majority of biomarker discovery and targeting, respectively. Twenty biomarkers were identified or chosen as target biomarkers. Conclusion Salivary proteins may be used to indicate effectiveness of orthodontic treatment and orthognathic treatment as well as adverse treatment consequence, such as root resorption.

show abstract

Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases

Abstract: Generally, lingual appliances offer comparable treatment results to those obtained with labial appliances. However, care should be taken with lingual appliances because they are more prone to produce uprighted incisors and root angulation.

Cited by 30 publications

References 18 publications

A Study of the Quality of Finish of Lingual versus Labial Bracket Systems As Measured By the Objective Grading System: A Retrospective Study in a University Orthodontic Clinic

A Study of the Quality of Finish of Lingual versus Labial Bracket Systems As Measured By the Objective Grading System: A Retrospective Study in a University Orthodontic Clinic

Clinical outcomes of lingual orthodontic treatment: a systematic review

Salivary protein biomarkers associated with orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About