Faculty of Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; College of Dentistry, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Faculty of Dentistry, Division of Orthodontics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Private Practice, Vancouver and Richmond, British Columbia, Canada.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020 Jul;158(1):59-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.07.015. Epub 2020 May 27.
One factor that can affect treatment outcomes is the treatment provider, and this factor has not been extensively studied. This research aimed to evaluate orthodontic treatment quality, length, and efficiency when 2 orthodontists collaborated on treatment, compared with the treatment provided solely by either orthodontist.
A total of 150 consecutively treated subjects were divided into 3 equal groups based on the treating clinician. Patients in group A were treated by orthodontist A, group B by orthodontist B, and group C by both orthodontists in collaboration. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR), Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON), American Board of Orthodontics-Discrepancy Index, and American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiographic Evaluation were used to assess the pretreatment and posttreatment status. Patient age, gender, type of malocclusion, extraction treatment, orthognathic surgery, treatment length, number of visits, and treatment efficiency index were assessed.
Posttreatment PAR and ICON indices showed excellent results in all 3 groups. American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiographic Evaluation was significantly higher in group C (25.3 points) than in group A (21.5 points) or group B (22.0 points) (P = 0.014). Patients in group A had significantly shorter treatment time (23 months) than those in either group B or C (26 months) (P = 0.011). Patients in group C required more appointments (27 visits) than those in either group A or B (23 and 25 visits, respectively). The treatment efficiency index showed no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups.
There was no difference in treatment quality among the 3 groups, as assessed by the PAR index and ICON. Jointly treated cases required 2 to 4 more visits and had higher American Board of Orthodontics-Cast and Radiograph Evaluation scores than those treated by either orthodontist. Complex cases required 6 to 7 more months when they were treated collaboratively.
一个可能影响治疗效果的因素是治疗提供者，而这个因素尚未得到广泛研究。本研究旨在评估当两位正畸医生合作治疗时，与仅由一位正畸医生提供的治疗相比，正畸治疗的质量、时长和效率。
共 150 名连续接受治疗的患者根据治疗医生分为 3 组。A 组患者由正畸医生 A 治疗，B 组由正畸医生 B 治疗，C 组由两位正畸医生合作治疗。采用患者评估等级（PAR）、复杂性、结果和需求指数（ICON）、美国正畸委员会-差异指数和美国正畸委员会-模型和 X 光评估来评估治疗前和治疗后的情况。评估患者年龄、性别、错颌类型、拔牙治疗、正颌手术、治疗时长、就诊次数和治疗效率指数。
三组患者的治疗后 PAR 和 ICON 指数均表现出优秀的结果。C 组的美国正畸委员会-模型和 X 光评估显著高于 A 组（25.3 分）和 B 组（22.0 分）（P=0.014）。A 组患者的治疗时间明显短于 B 组（26 个月）和 C 组（26 个月）（P=0.011）。C 组患者需要的就诊次数（27 次）多于 A 组（23 次）或 B 组（25 次）。三组间的治疗效率指数无统计学差异。
PAR 指数和 ICON 评估显示三组治疗质量无差异。联合治疗病例需要多 2 到 4 次就诊，且美国正畸委员会-模型和 X 光评估得分高于由单一正畸医生治疗的病例。复杂病例的合作治疗需要多 6 到 7 个月。
