References

McGuinness NJ, McDonald JP. The influence of operator changes on orthodontic treatment times and results in a postgraduate teaching environment. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20:(2)
Cook DR, Harris EF, Vaden JL. Comparison of university and private-practice orthodontic treatment outcomes with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.: American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics; 2005
Mascarenhas AK, Vig K. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in educational and private practice settings. J Dent Educ. 2002; 66:(1)94-99
O'Brien KD, Weyant RJ. Process analysis of treatment provided by the hospital orthodontic service. Br J Orthod. 1993; 20:(2)131-134
Ireland AJ, Sherriff M. The effect of timing of archwire placement on in vivo bond failure. Br J Orthod. 1997; 24:(3)243-245
Millett DT, Hallgren A, Cattanach D, McFadzean R, Pattison J, Robertson M A 5-year clinical review of bond failure with a light-cured resin adhesive. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68:(4)351-356
Chawla OSD, Amin M, Atack NE. How long will I have to wear my braces for? British Orthodontic Conference.: British Orthodontic Society; 2012
Skidmore KJ, Brook KJ, Thomson WM, Harding WJ. Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006; 129:(2)230-238
Banks P, Elton V, Jones Y, Rice P, Derwent S, Odondi L. The use of fixed appliances in the UK: a survey of specialist orthodontists. J Orthod. 2010; 37:(1)43-55
Eliades T, Bourauel C. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005; 127:(4)403-412
Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010; 137:(6)738-742
DiBiase AT, Nasr IH, Scott P, Cobourne MT. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011; 139:(2)e111-6
Wang Y, Jian F, Lai W, Zhao Z, Yang Z, Liao Z Initial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:(4)
Mandall N, Lowe C, Worthington H, Sandler J, Derwent S, Abdi-Oskouei M Which orthodontic archwire sequence? A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2006; 28:(6)561-566
Mavreas D, Athanasiou AE. Factors affecting the duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Eur J Orthod. 2008; 30:(4)386-395
Vig PS, Weintraub JA, Brown C, Kowalski CJ. The duration of orthodontic treatment with and without extractions: a pilot study of five selected practices. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990; 97:(1)45-51
Fink DF, Smith RJ. The duration of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1992; 102:(1)45-51
Janson G, Maria FR, Barros SE, Freitas MR, Henriques JF. Orthodontic treatment time in 2– and 4–premolar-extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006; 129:(5)666-671
Tang EL, Wei SH. Assessing treatment effectiveness of removable and fixed orthodontic appliances with the occlusal index. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990; 98:(6)550-556
Taylor PJ, Kerr WJ, McColl JH. Factors associated with the standard and duration of orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1996; 23:(4)335-341
Teh LH, Kerr WJ, McColl JH. Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances in the General Dental Service in Scotland. J Orthod. 2000; 27:(2)175-180
Beckwith FR, Ackerman RJ, Cobb CM, Tira DE. An evaluation of factors affecting duration of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999; 115:(4)439-447
Tulloch JF, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Benefit of early Class II treatment: progress report of a two-phase randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1998; 113:(1)62-72
Dyken RA, Sadowsky PL, Hurst D. Orthodontic outcomes assessment using the peer assessment rating index. Angle Orthod. 2001; 71:(3)164-169

What factors might affect the success of fixed appliance therapy in adolescent patients? part 2

From Volume 6, Issue 4, October 2013 | Pages 121-124

Authors

Julie C Williams

BDS, MFGDP, DPDS MA (Ethics of Healthcare)

StR in Orthodontics, Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton and Yeovil District Hospital and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Articles by Julie C Williams

Jonathan Sandy

BDS, MSc, PhD (Lond), MOrth RCS, FDS RCS, FDS RCSEd, FFD RCS, PhD

Professor of Orthodontics, School of Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Articles by Jonathan Sandy

Abstract

In the first part of this article, the authors addressed patient-related factors that may affect the success of orthodontic treatment within the adolescent. In this second part, operator and appliance factors will be discussed.

Clinical Relevance: The conversational model of consent requires that clinicians disclose all of the appropriate information to patients prior to them making the decision whether to accept or decline treatment. Understanding factors that could affect the outcome with respect to both treatment efficiency and occlusal result will therefore help inform this consent process.

Article

The operator dependent factors that might affect orthodontic outcome include:

Hospital orthodontic departments are often involved in the training of orthodontic clinicians, which may lead to any one patient receiving treatment from multiple operators. A study which looked at the effect of such practice on treatment efficiency and outcome found that, on average, treatment duration was extended by around 8.43 months as a result of multiple operators.1 Reassuringly, the standard of orthodontic treatment, as assessed by the change in PAR score, was unaffected. There do not appear to be any published data on the possible effect of the transfer of patients from one department or practice to another on the treatment duration, but it could be expected to increase both the total time in treatment and the number of appointments required to complete treatment.

There is some conflicting evidence as to whether orthodontic treatment takes longer within different clinical settings. No significant difference in treatment duration was found between similar cases within a private orthodontic practice and a university setting in Memphis, USA.2 However, in another US study, this time in Boston, treatment was found to take longer in private orthodontic practice compared with a hospital setting, even after controlling for confounding factors such as pre-treatment age, gender, race, initial malocclusion and increased number of treatment stages.3 Possible reasons for this observed difference could be related to the method of funding between the two US systems, with fees being spread over a longer time period within private practice. The occlusal outcome, measured using change in PAR scores, was judged to be similar between the two treatment settings.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available