Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems

Assessment based on American Board of Orthodontics criteria

Klinische Behandlungsergebnisse lingualer vollständig individualisierter vs. labialer Straight-wire-Systeme

Bewertung auf der Grundlage der Kriterien des American Board of Orthodontics

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate orthodontic treatment outcome in patients treated with a lingual appliance (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) versus patients treated with a labial appliance (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA).

Methods

A total of 72 patients were retrospectively analyzed. The complexity of each case was evaluated using the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Discrepancy Index (DI), and orthodontic clinical outcomes were evaluated using the ABO Objective Grading System (cast-radiograph evaluation: C‑R Eval).

Results

The mean total ABO C‑R Eval score was 16 ± 9.1 in the labial appliance group and 12.7 ± 5.4 in lingual appliance group (p = 0.152). The mean total ABO-DI scores were 16.3 ± 7.3 and 15.4 ± 6.6 in the labial and lingual appliance groups, respectively (p = 0.445). A significant correlation was observed between the total DI and total C‑R Eval scores.

Conclusions

In this particular study and in the hands of two experienced orthodontists, no differences in the finishing quality of orthodontic treatments using the lingual technique or the buccal appliance technique were found. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes are necessary in order to generalize these results.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Evaluierung des kieferorthopädischen Behandlungsergebnisses bei Patienten, die mit einer Lingualapparatur (Incognito™ Appliance System, 3M Unitek, Monrovia/CA, USA) behandelt wurden, im Vergleich zu Patienten, die mit einer Labialapparatur (Victory series™, 3M Unitek, Monrovia/CA, USA) behandelt wurden.

Methoden

Insgesamt 72 Patienten wurden retrospektiv analysiert. Die Komplexität jedes Falles wurde mithilfe des Diskrepanzindex (DI) des American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) bewertet, und die kieferorthopädischen klinischen Ergebnisse wurden mit dem ABO Objective Grading System (Bewertung von Cast-Röntgenaufnahmen) bewertet („cast-radiograph evaluation“, C‑R Eval).

Ergebnisse

Der mittlere Gesamtwert des ABO C‑R Eval betrug 16 ± 9,1 in der Gruppe der Labialapparaturen und 12,7 ± 5,4 in der Gruppe der Lingualapparaturen (p = 0,152). Der mittlere ABO-DI-Gesamtwert betrug 16,3 ± 7,3 bzw. 15,4 ± 6,6 in der Gruppe der Labial- und Lingualapparaturen (p = 0,445). Es wurde eine signifikante Korrelation zwischen dem Gesamt-DI- und dem Gesamt-C-R-Eval-Score beobachtet.

Schlussfolgerungen

In dieser speziellen Studie und in den Händen zweier erfahrener Kieferorthopäden ließen sich keine Unterschiede in der Qualität des kieferorthopädischen Finishings mit der Lingualtechnik bzw. der bukkalen Apparatetechnik feststellen. Um diese Ergebnisse zu verallgemeinern, sind jedoch weitere prospektive Studien mit größeren Stichprobengrößen erforderlich.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1 Abb. 1
Fig. 2 Abb. 2
Fig. 3 Abb. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ponduri S, Pringle A, Illing HM, Brennan PA (2011) Peer assessment rating (PAR) index outcomes for orthodontic and orthognathic surgery patients. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2010.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chalabi O, Preston CB, Al-Jewair TS, Tabbaa S (2015) A comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes using the Objective Grading System (OGS) and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index. Aust Orthod J 31:157–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bichara LM, Aragón ML, Brandão GA, Normando D (2016) Factors influencing orthodontic treatment time for non-surgical Class III malocclusion. J Appl Oral Sci. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150353

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Cansunar HA, Uysal T (2014) Relationship between pretreatment case complexity and orthodontic clinical outcomes determined by the American Board of Orthodontics criteria. Angle Orthod 84:974–979. https://doi.org/10.2319/010114-001.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chaison ET, Liu X, Tuncay OC (2011) The quality of treatment in the adult orthodontic patient as judged by orthodontists and measured by the Objective Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139(4 Suppl):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Struble BH, Huang GJ (2010) Comparison of prospectively and retrospectively selected American Board of Orthodontics cases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137(1):6.e1–6.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Parrish LD, Roberts WE, Maupome G, Stewart KT, Bandy RW, Kula KS (2011) The relationship between the ABO discrepancy index and treatment duration in a graduate orthodontic clinic. Angle Orthod 81(2):192–197. https://doi.org/10.2319/062210-341.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu S, Oh H, Chambers DW, Baumrind S, Xu T (2017) Validity of the American Board of Orthodontics Discrepancy Index and the Peer Assessment Rating Index for comprehensive evaluation of malocclusion severity. Orthod Craniofac Res 20:140–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell CL, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK Jr, Qi R (2007) Treatment outcomes in a graduate orthodontic clinic for cases defined by the American Board of Orthodontics malocclusion categories. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:822–829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vu J, Pancherz H, Schwestka-Polly R, Wiechmann D (2012) Correction of Class II, Division 2 malocclusions using a completely customized lingual appliance and the Herbst device. J Orofac Orthop 73:225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0077-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Deguchi T, Terao F, Aonuma T, Kataoka T, Sugawara Y, Yamashiro T, Takano-Yamamoto T (2015) Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases. Angle Orthod 85:400–407. https://doi.org/10.2319/031014-173.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M, Initiative STROBE (2007) Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 18:805–835

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ata-Ali F, Plasencia E, Lanuza-Garcia A, Ferrer-Molina M, Melo M, Ata-Ali J (2019) Effectiveness of lingual versus labial fixed appliances in adults according to the Peer Assessment Rating index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 155:819–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Bills ED (1998) Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114:589–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. American Board of Orthodontics (2019) https://www.americanboardortho.com/media/5292/121218aboclinicalexamstudyguide.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2019

  16. Cangialosi TJ, Riolo ML, Owens SE Jr, Dykhouse VJ, Moffitt AH, Grubb JE, Greco PM, English JD, James RD (2004) The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 125:270–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dahlberg G (1940) Errors of estimation. In: Statistical methods for medical and biological students, 1st edn. George Allen & Unwin LTD, London, pp 122–132

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fleiss JL (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. John Wiley, New York, pp 241–260

    Google Scholar 

  19. Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans CA, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S (2007) Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 13:51–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Detterline DA, Isikbay SC, Brizendine EJ, Kula KS (2010) Clinical outcomes of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot using the ABO objective grading system. Angle Orthod 80:528–532. https://doi.org/10.2319/060309-315.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fujita K (1979) New orthodontic treatment with lingual bracket mushroom arch wire appliance. Am J Orthod 76:657–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ata-Ali F, Ata-Ali J, Ferrer-Molina M, Cobo T, De Carlos F, Cobo J (2016) Adverse effects of lingual and buccal orthodontic techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 149:820–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.11.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pulfer RM, Drake CT, Maupome G, Eckert GJ, Roberts WE (2009) The association of malocclusion complexity and orthodontic treatment outcomes. Angle Orthod 79:468–472. https://doi.org/10.2319/042308-227.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cameron D (2010) The relationship between American Board of Orthodontics pretreatment dental cast Discrepancy Index scores and posttreatment dental cast Objective Grading System scores. Master’s thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School of Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

  25. Papageorgiou SN, Koretsi V, Jäger A (2017) Bias from historical control groups used in orthodontic research: a meta-epidemiological study. Eur J Orthod 39:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Holmes A (1992) The subjective need and demand for orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 19:287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rosvall MD, Fields HW, Ziuchkovski J, Rosenstiel SF, Johnston WM (2009) Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:276.e1–276.12

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private practice, Valencia, Spain

    Fadi Ata-Ali

  2. Faculty of Health Sciences. Department of Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Javier Ata-Ali & Maria Melo

  3. Public Dental Health Service, Department of the Hospital Universitario y Politécnico la Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 46026, Valencia, Spain

    Javier Ata-Ali

  4. School of Medicine and Dentistry, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, Valencia, Spain

    Alicia Lanuza-Garcia, Marcela Ferrer-Molina & Eliseo Plasencia

  5. Valencia University Medical and Dental School, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    Alicia Lanuza-Garcia, Marcela Ferrer-Molina, Maria Melo & Eliseo Plasencia

Authors
  1. Fadi Ata-Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javier Ata-Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alicia Lanuza-Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcela Ferrer-Molina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Melo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Eliseo Plasencia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javier Ata-Ali.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

F. Ata-Ali, J. Ata-Ali, A. Lanuza-Garcia, M. Ferrer-Molina, M. Melo and E. Plasencia declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

The Ethics Committee of University of Valencia (Spain) approved this study. All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study (Reference: H1475013776580).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ata-Ali, F., Ata-Ali, J., Lanuza-Garcia, A. et al. Clinical outcomes of lingual fully customized vs labial straight wire systems. J Orofac Orthop 82, 13–22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00248-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00248-0

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation