Developing outcome measuresin orthodontics that reflect patient and provider values

Vig, Katherine W.L.; Weyant, Robert J.; O’Brien, Kevin; Bennett, Elizabeth

doi:10.1016/s1073-8746(99)80028-0

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patient reported outcome measures should also be included. 66 A contemporaneous control group of II/2M subjects should be used in future comparative studies of treatment and stability and not subjects with a Class I occlusion/malocclusion; the former would eliminate bias due to secular changes affecting facial growth, which have been observed over recent decades. 67 The eight-year recruitment period in the study by Woods 38 highlights the difficulty of prospectively recruiting a treatment and control group for II/2M, despite offering a fee waiver.…”

Section: Implications For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment and stability of Class II Division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Millett

Cunningham

O’Brien

et al. 2012

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate the evidence with regard to the effectiveness and stability of orthodontic treatment interventions for Class II division 2 malocclusion (II/2M) in children and adolescents.Design: Systematic review conducted according to the PRISMA statement.Methods: The Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to November 2011. Relevant conference abstracts were also screened. No language restrictions were applied. Inclusion criteria were: clinical studies with > 20 II/2M subjects where comparisons were made with an untreated II/2 M group or another treated II/2 M group or neither. For included studies ranked best on the hierarchy of evidence, assessments of methodological quality and risk of bias were undertaken. Abstracts and, when appropriate, full papers were examined independently by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved through discussion.Outcomes: Treatment changes and/or stability with or without retainers using the following measures: skeletal, soft tissue, dental, occlusal changes, gingival health, TMJ status and/or related muscular activity or quality of life.Results: Of the 322 studies identified in the search, 20 met the final inclusion criteria. All were at high risk of bias.Conclusions: Highly biased evidence exists with regard to management and stability of II/2 M. Guidelines are proposed based on current evidence.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment and stability of Class II Division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Millett

Cunningham

O’Brien

et al. 2012

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reasons given for patients' intolerance of retainer wear for this long term include difficulty in speaking or eating, smell because of the oral hygiene problem and embarrassment. 4,5 Speech production can be affected by any osseous, muscular, dental, or soft tissue deformity or by any device that impairs the movement or appearance of the speech sound articulators. 6,7 The effects of orthodontic appliances on speech have been extensively studied [8][9][10] during the past decades.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Hawley retainers on consonants and formant frequencies of vowels

Kayikci

Akan

Ciğer

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess (1) whether Hawley retainers cause speech disturbance and (2) the duration of speech adaptation to Hawley retainers with objective and subjective tests. Materials and Methods: Twelve adolescents, aged 11.11 to 18.03 years, were included in this study. The assessment of speech sounds were done subjectively using an articulation test and objectively using acoustic analysis before and after Hawley retainer application. Results: After wearing Hawley retainers, patients showed statistically significant speech disturbances on consonants [ş] and [z]. Regarding the vowels, statistically significant changes were recorded with [i], while F1 increased and F2 and F3 decreased. Conclusions: The tongue changes its target position with the application of a foreign body within the mouth; however, in time it adapts to that new situation. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:14-21.)

show abstract

“…2,3 Although the major goal of the treatment is the correction of the malocclusion, the beneficial treatment effect on the facial profile also is appreciated. 4,5 It has been shown that, in general, a straight profile is preferred for men and a slightly convex profile is preferred for women. We have previously shown that a cervical headgear may be used to treat Class II division 1 malocclusion to a Class I molar relationship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facial Profile Changes in Early Class II Correction with Cervical Headgear

Kirjavainen

Hurmerinta

Kirjavainen

2007

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To characterize the effects of early cervical headgear treatment on the facial profile of children in Class II division 1 malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Forty children aged 9.1 (7.2-11.5) years with Class II division 1 malocclusion were treated using a cervical headgear appliance. The headgear consisted of a long outer bow bent upward 15Њ and a large expanded inner bow. Lateral cephalograms were taken before and after treatment, and the facial profile was estimated from the cephalograms. The results were compared to an age-and sex-matched normal cohort of 644 Finnish children. Results: Class I molar relationship was achieved in all treated children. The treatment time was 1.6 (0.3-3.1) years on average. Compared to the controls, the treatment restricted the forward growth of maxillary A-point, and the SNA angle decreased 1.4Њ Ϯ 1.2Њ per year (P Ͻ .00001). Decreased maxillary prognathism was associated with decreased facial convexity, g-sn-pg (P ϭ .02), and the ANB (P Ͻ .00001) angles decreased compared to the controls. Upper lip protrusion (distance ls to sn-pg; P Ͻ .00001) was decreased, and the nasolabial angle (cm-sn-ls) widened despite the increased facial inclination of the upper incisors (P ϭ .0005). The treatment significantly decreased the gap between the lips (P ϭ .0009) in their relaxed position. Conclusion: Cervical headgear treatment in Class II correction is associated with a decreased facial convexity caused by the restriction of forward growth of the maxillary A-point, while the rest of the facial profile, including the mandible, continue to grow forward at a normal rate.

show abstract

Developing outcome measuresin orthodontics that reflect patient and provider values

Cited by 22 publications

References 14 publications

Treatment and stability of Class II Division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Treatment and stability of Class II Division 2 malocclusion in children and adolescents: A systematic review

Effects of Hawley retainers on consonants and formant frequencies of vowels

Facial Profile Changes in Early Class II Correction with Cervical Headgear

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About