Private practice, Bend, Ore., USA.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jan;137(1):6.e1-8; discussion 6-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.016.
In this study, we compared the pretreatment conditions, treatment characteristics, and orthodontic outcomes of 3 groups of subjects selected for the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) phase III clinical examination. One group was selected retrospectively by graduating residents just before their graduation. The 2 prospective groups were treated at separate institutions. The students at 1 institution were not aware that these patients would be potential ABO cases (prospective, blinded), but the students at the second institution were aware that these subjects would serve as their pool of potential patients for the ABO examination (prospective, unblinded). In addition to comparing the 3 groups, all cases were categorized as passing or failing based on their total objective grading system (ABO-OGS) score to assess the ABO-OGS criteria that were the most challenging to meet.
Chart histories and orthodontic dental casts (pretreatment and posttreatment) were collected for 133 subjects. Information regarding demographics, initial malocclusion type, treatment modality, treatment duration, appointment frequency, and missed appointments were collected from chart histories. Pretreatment dental casts were evaluated by using the discrepancy index; the index of complexity, outcome, and need; and the peer assessment rating. Posttreatment dental casts were evaluated with the peer assessment rating and the ABO-OGS.
The only significant pretreatment characteristic with predictive power for favorable orthodontic outcome was Angle Class I (3.1 odds ratio for passing the ABO-OGS) compared with the Class II subjects. The prospective unblinded group received more extraction and headgear therapy than did the other groups. The retrospective group had significantly lower total ABO-OGS posttreatment scores and a higher passing rate compared with the prospective groups.
Angle Class I malocclusions appear to have some advantage for achieving passing ABO-OGS scores, as does the retrospective selection of cases. Successful board certification appears difficult to accomplish based on a prospective model for orthodontic graduate residents. New graduate candidates might be at a disadvantage compared with traditional candidates because they often cannot take advantage of the posttreatment settling phase. Alignment, marginal ridges, and occlusal contacts appear to be where most points are deducted in the evaluation of ABO-OGS certification cases.
在这项研究中，我们比较了三组接受美国正畸委员会（ABO）第三阶段临床检查的受试者的预处理条件、治疗特征和正畸结果。一组是由即将毕业的住院医师在毕业前进行回顾性选择。另外两组是在不同的机构进行治疗。一个机构的学生不知道这些患者将成为潜在的 ABO 病例（前瞻性、盲法），而另一个机构的学生知道这些受试者将作为他们 ABO 检查的潜在患者群体（前瞻性、非盲法）。除了比较这三组之外，我们还根据他们的总客观评分系统（ABO-OGS）评分将所有病例分为通过或失败，以评估最难满足的 ABO-OGS 标准。
我们收集了 133 名受试者的图表病史和正畸牙模（治疗前和治疗后）。从图表病史中收集了有关人口统计学、初始错颌类型、治疗方式、治疗持续时间、就诊频率和错过预约的信息。使用差异指数、复杂性、结果和需要指数以及同行评估评分来评估治疗前牙模。使用同行评估评分和 ABO-OGS 来评估治疗后牙模。
唯一具有预测有利正畸结果能力的显著预处理特征是安氏 I 类（通过 ABO-OGS 的几率为 3.1），而不是安氏 II 类。前瞻性非盲组比其他组接受了更多的拔牙和头帽治疗。回顾性组的 ABO-OGS 治疗后总评分明显较低，通过率明显高于前瞻性组。
安氏 I 类错颌似乎在获得 ABO-OGS 评分方面具有一些优势，病例的回顾性选择也是如此。成功的董事会认证似乎很难通过正畸研究生的前瞻性模型来实现。与传统候选人相比，新的研究生候选人可能处于劣势，因为他们通常无法利用治疗后的稳定阶段。在 ABO-OGS 认证病例的评估中，似乎大部分扣分都集中在排齐、边缘嵴和咬合接触上。
