The journal of contemporary dental practice · 2016
Evaluation of Outcome of Orthodontic Treatment in Context to Posttreatment Stability: A Retrospective Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kanuru Ravi Krishna, Mangat Sukhpreet S, Sepolia Gaurav, Subudhi Santosh K, Asnani Mohil M, Bansal Anupam
Аннотация
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.
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.