Advertisement

The effect of orthodontist change on treatment duration and outcomes

Published:October 16, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2021.01.021

      Highlights

      • The effect of patient transfer on treatment quality and duration was investigated.
      • The American Board of Orthodontics cast-radiograph evaluation was used in the assessment.
      • Transfer patients have longer treatment duration and poorer treatment quality.

      Introduction

      This retrospective study aimed to evaluate whether there are differences in the duration of treatment and the quality of treatment results between patients whose entire treatment process is carried out by a single operator and those patients who are transferred to a second operator.

      Methods

      One hundred twenty-three patients whose fixed orthodontic treatments were completed and included in the study, and their posttreatment plaster models and panoramic radiographs were used. Fifty-nine of the subjects were transfer patients, and their treatment was administered by 2 residents (transfer group). For the remaining 64 patients, all the treatment was carried out by a single resident (control group). Each group was further divided into 2 groups according to the treatment modality, resulting in 4 groups (nonextraction transfer group [n = 27], extraction transfer group [n = 32], nonextraction control group [n = 32], and extraction control group [n = 32]). The quality of the treatment outcomes was evaluated and compared using the American Board of Orthodontics cast-radiograph evaluation (CRE).

      Results

      The total mean CRE scores in the nonextraction transfer and nonextraction control groups were 35.74 and 29.88, respectively. The means of treatment duration in the nonextraction transfer and nonextraction control groups were 32.7 months and 17.25 months, respectively. The total mean CRE scores in the extraction transfer and extraction control groups were 39.53 and 31.41, respectively. The means of treatment duration in the extraction transfer and extraction control groups were 34.38 and 22.94 months, respectively. Differences between all the compared pairings were statistically significant.

      Conclusions

      The transferred patients had longer treatment times and poorer treatment quality than the control group patients.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Toh L.S.
        The influence of operator changes on orthodontic treatment duration and outcomes.
        Malays Dent J. 2015; 38: 16-36
        • Keim R.G.
        The dilemma of transfer cases.
        J Clin Orthod. 2010; 44: 521-522
        • McNamara Jr., J.A.
        • Brudon W.L.
        • Kokich V.G.
        Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics.
        Needham Press, Ann Arbor2001: 149
        • O'Brien K.D.
        • Shaw W.C.
        • Roberts C.T.
        The use of occlusal indices in assessing the provision of orthodontic treatment by the hospital orthodontic service of England and Wales.
        Br J Orthod. 1993; 20: 25-35
        • Tahir E.
        • Sadowsky C.
        • Schneider B.J.
        An assessment of treatment outcome in American Board of Orthodontics cases.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111: 335-342
        • Cook D.R.
        • Harris E.F.
        • Vaden J.L.
        Comparison of university and private-practice orthodontic treatment outcomes with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127: 707-712
        • Campbell C.L.
        • Roberts W.E.
        • Hartsfield Jr., J.K.
        • Qi R.
        Treatment outcomes in a graduate orthodontic clinic for cases defined by the American Board of Orthodontics malocclusion categories.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132: 822-829
        • Casko J.S.
        • Vaden J.L.
        • Kokich V.G.
        • Damone J.
        • James R.D.
        • Cangialosi T.J.
        • et al.
        Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114: 589-599
        • Daniels C.
        • Richmond S.
        The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON).
        Br J OrthodJ Orthod. 2000; 27: 149-162
        • Richmond S.
        • Shaw W.C.
        • Roberts C.T.
        • Andrews M.
        The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards.
        Eur J Orthod. 1992; 14: 180-187
        • McGuinness N.J.
        • McDonald J.P.
        The influence of operator changes on orthodontic treatment times and results in a postgraduate teaching environment.
        Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20: 159-167
        • Deguchi T.
        • Honjo T.
        • Fukunaga T.
        • Miyawaki S.
        • Roberts W.E.
        • Takano-Yamamoto T.
        Clinical assessment of orthodontic outcomes with the peer assessment rating, discrepancy index, objective grading system, and comprehensive clinical assessment.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127: 434-443
        • Lieber W.S.
        • Carlson S.K.
        • Baumrind S.
        • Poulton D.R.
        Clinical use of the ABO-Scoring Index: reliability and subtraction frequency.
        Angle Orthod. 2003; 73: 556-564
        • Onyeaso C.O.
        • Begole E.A.
        Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 248-252
        • Qasem M.A.M.
        An assessment of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment using ICON index, PAR index and the ABO-OGS/CRE system [thesis].
        Gazi Üniversitesi Healty Sciences Institute, Ankara2015
        • Yang-Powers L.C.
        • Sadowsky C.
        • Rosenstein S.
        • BeGole E.A.
        Treatment outcome in a graduate orthodontic clinic using the American Board of Orthodontics grading system.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122: 451-455
        • Santiago J.J.
        • Martinez C.J.
        Use of the objective grading system of the American Board of Orthodontics to evaluate treatment outcomes at the Orthodontic Graduate Program Clinic. University of Puerto Rico, 2007-2008.
        P R Health Sci J. 2012; 31: 29-34
        • Pinskaya Y.B.
        • Hsieh T.J.
        • Roberts W.E.
        • Hartsfield J.K.
        Comprehensive clinical evaluation as an outcome assessment for a graduate orthodontics program.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126: 533-543
        • Ormiston J.P.
        • Huang G.J.
        • Little R.M.
        • Decker J.D.
        • Seuk G.D.
        Retrospective analysis of long-term stable and unstable orthodontic treatment outcomes.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128 (quiz 669): 568-574
        • Otuyemi O.D.
        • Jones S.P.
        Long-term evaluation of treated class II division 1 malocclusions utilizing the PAR index.
        Br J Orthod. 1995; 22: 171-178
        • Weiland F.J.
        The role of occlusal discrepancies in the long-term stability of the mandibular arch.
        Eur J Orthod. 1994; 16: 521-529