Is It True, To Blindly Judge The Amount of Crowding In Orthodontic Treatment Planning?
Is It True, To Blindly Judge The Amount of Crowding In Orthodontic Treatment Planning?
Keywords:
crowding, orthodontic, treatmentAbstract
Objective: The orthodontic treatment planning change when blindly judge the amount of crowding and when orthodontist get true amount of crowding from orthodontic study model. Methods:100 orthodontists were asked to judge the amount of crowding on eight orthodontic study models by visualization and give the treatment of choice whether it will go for extraction, proximal stripping or expansion. For each model, the inter-canine width, inter-molar width and arch length were identical but the true crowding varied from 0.5 to 8.5mm. All orthodontist repeated the visualization exercise after 2 weeks to assess reliability and all the orthodontists were asked to repeat the treatment planning exercise on the same model but this time the value of true degree of crowding was provided. Result: All data were analyzed with significance predetermined at α-0.05.The result was showing that there was no statically significant difference in the repeat data. In results we couldn’t find the statically significant difference in the reevaluated data. The extraction pattern was changed on 126 occasions when the true amount of crowding was known. In total, 800 treatment plans were included in the analysis (100 orthodontists scoring 8-models), in which the pattern of extraction was being changed in 14.6% of cases when the true amount of crowding was provided. Conclusions: Direct visualization may over judge the amount of crowding present and may affect the orthodontic treatment plan. When the true degree of crowding is known it can be lead to more consistent treatment planning with the decision to extract fewer teeth in the borderline cases.[Pratik GNJIRM 2017; 8(5):71-74]
References
2. Herren et al: Arch shape and space balance determined by arcogramme technique. Transactions of the European orthodontic society, 1973; 61-73.
3. Rudge et al: A computer program for the analysis of the studymodels. European journal of orthodontics, 1982; 4:269-273.
4. Bhatia et al: Operational performance of the travelling microscope in the measurement of dental casts. British journal of orthodontics, 1987; 14:147-153.
5. Harrish et al: Lower incisor space analysis: A contrast of methods. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics, 1987; 92:375-380.
6. Richmond et al: Recording the dental cast in three dimensions. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics, 1987; 92:199-206.
7. Schirmer et al: Manual and computer – aided space analysis: A comparative study. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics, 112:676-680, 1997
8. Krischen, R.H., O’Higgins, E.A. and Lee, R.T.: The royal London space Planning: an integration of space analysis and treatment planning part I: Assessing the space required to meet treatment objectives. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics, 2000; 118:448-455.
9. Krischen, R.H., O’Higgins, E.A. and Lee, R.T.: The royal London space Planning: an integration of space analysis and treatment planning part II: The effect of other treatment procedures on space. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics, 2000; 118: 456-461.
10. Wallis et al: How good are we at estimating crowding and how does it affect our treatment decisions? European journal of orthodontics, 2013; 36:465-470.
11. Lin, L.I.K.: A note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics, 2000; 56:324-325.
12. Johal et al: Dental crowding: A comparison of three methods of assessment. European journal of orthodontics, 1997; 19:543-551.
13. Nijkamp et al: The influence of Cephalometrics on orthodontic treatment planning. European journal of orthodontics, 2008; 30:630-635.
14. Nywel Naish et al: Does a true knowledge of dental crowding affect orthodontic treatment decision? European journal of orthodontics, 2016; 38:66-70.
