Suppr超能文献

影响美国正畸医师协会客观分级系统(ABO-OGS)评估的治疗效果的因素。

Factors influencing treatment outcomes assessed by the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS).

机构信息

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, 34 Henri-Dunant Road, Wangmai, Pathumwan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.

Department of Statistics, Chulalongkorn Business School, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.

出版信息

BMC Oral Health. 2023 Dec 14;23(1):1000. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03735-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Treatment outcomes can be influenced by various factors. This study aimed to determine the association between predisposing patient- and treatment-related factors (demographic, cephalometric parameters, skeletal relationships, Discrepancy Index (DI), extractions, treatment type and duration) and treatment outcomes measures according to the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System index (ABO-OGS).

METHODS

Completed cases (N = 100) were included in this cross-sectional study. One calibrated examiner assessed DI, pretreatment lateral cephalometric parameters and ABO-OGS. Patient data, including sex, age, types of malocclusion, extractions, treatment type, and duration, were also collected. Intraexaminer reliability for each measurement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficients. Multiple linear regression analysis, using the backward elimination method with a significance level (α) of 0.05, was used to determine which factors significantly influenced the ABO-OGS score.

RESULTS

From the study, the overall mean ABO-OGS score was 11.36 points. Factors influencing the ABO-OGS score were pretreatment Wits values (p value = .000), L1-NB (°) (p value = .023) and treatment duration (p value = .019). Subjects with lower negative values of Wits and L1-NB (°) tended to have higher ABO-OGS scores. Additionally, the ABO-OGS score tended to be higher for subjects with longer treatment times.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of treated subjects had satisfactory orthodontic treatment outcomes assessed by the ABO-OGS. The pretreatment severity of skeletal discrepancies determined by the Wits parameter, the degree of retroclined lower incisors and longer treatment duration negatively impacted the treatment outcomes.

摘要

背景

治疗结果可能受到各种因素的影响。本研究旨在根据美国正畸医师协会客观分级系统(ABO-OGS)评估的差异性指数(DI)、治疗前头颅侧位参数、骨骼关系、患者相关和治疗相关因素(人口统计学、头影测量参数、骨骼关系、差异指数(DI)、拔牙、治疗类型和持续时间)与治疗结果之间的关系。

方法

本横断面研究纳入了 100 例完成治疗的患者。一名经过校准的检查者评估 DI、治疗前头颅侧位参数和 ABO-OGS。还收集了患者数据,包括性别、年龄、错颌类型、拔牙、治疗类型和持续时间。使用组内相关系数评估每个测量值的内部检查者可靠性。使用向后消除法进行多重线性回归分析,显著性水平(α)为 0.05,以确定哪些因素显著影响 ABO-OGS 评分。

结果

研究中 ABO-OGS 的总平均得分为 11.36 分。影响 ABO-OGS 评分的因素有治疗前的 WITS 值(p 值=0.000)、L1-NB(°)(p 值=0.023)和治疗持续时间(p 值=0.019)。WITS 值和 L1-NB(°)的负值越低,治疗后 ABO-OGS 评分越高。此外,治疗时间越长,ABO-OGS 评分越高。

结论

大多数接受治疗的患者在 ABO-OGS 评估中取得了满意的正畸治疗效果。WITS 参数确定的骨骼差异严重程度、下切牙后倾程度和治疗持续时间长短均对治疗结果产生负面影响。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/29b1/10720172/d047e635668f/12903_2023_3735_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

2
Treatment outcomes in a graduate orthodontic clinic for cases defined by the American Board of Orthodontics malocclusion categories.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Dec;132(6):822-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.036.
3
Validation of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System for assessing the treatment outcomes of Chinese patients.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Sep;144(3):391-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.018.
4
Comparison of prospectively and retrospectively selected American Board of Orthodontics cases.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jan;137(1):6.e1-8; discussion 6-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.016.
8
Treatment complexity index for assessing the relationship of treatment duration and outcomes in a graduate orthodontics clinic.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jan;133(1):9.e1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.012.

引用本文的文献

1
Orthodontic finishing errors detected in board-approved cases: common types and prediction.
Dental Press J Orthod. 2024 Sep 2;29(4):e2424102. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.29.4.e2424102.oar. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

2
Orthodontic Treatment Characteristics and Outcomes in an Educational Setting.
Int J Dent. 2020 Apr 30;2020:8367232. doi: 10.1155/2020/8367232. eCollection 2020.
3
Outcomes of comprehensive fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological overview.
Korean J Orthod. 2017 Nov;47(6):401-413. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.6.401. Epub 2017 Sep 29.
4
A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012. Epub 2016 Mar 31.
8
Comparison of prospectively and retrospectively selected American Board of Orthodontics cases.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jan;137(1):6.e1-8; discussion 6-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.016.
9
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.
Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
10
The association of malocclusion complexity and orthodontic treatment outcomes.
Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):468-72. doi: 10.2319/042308-227.1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验