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:
PDF Download and 24 Hours Online AccessSubscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial OrthopedicsAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The influence of operator changes on orthodontic treatment duration and outcomes.Malays Dent J. 2015; 38: 16-36
- The dilemma of transfer cases.J Clin Orthod. 2010; 44: 521-522
- Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics.Needham Press, Ann Arbor2001: 149
- 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
- An assessment of treatment outcome in American Board of Orthodontics cases.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111: 335-342
- 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
- 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
- Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 114: 589-599
- The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON).Br J OrthodJ Orthod. 2000; 27: 149-162
- 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
- The influence of operator changes on orthodontic treatment times and results in a postgraduate teaching environment.Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20: 159-167
- 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
- Clinical use of the ABO-Scoring Index: reliability and subtraction frequency.Angle Orthod. 2003; 73: 556-564
- 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
- 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
- Treatment outcome in a graduate orthodontic clinic using the American Board of Orthodontics grading system.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122: 451-455
- 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
- Comprehensive clinical evaluation as an outcome assessment for a graduate orthodontics program.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126: 533-543
- Retrospective analysis of long-term stable and unstable orthodontic treatment outcomes.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128 (quiz 669): 568-574
- Long-term evaluation of treated class II division 1 malocclusions utilizing the PAR index.Br J Orthod. 1995; 22: 171-178
- The role of occlusal discrepancies in the long-term stability of the mandibular arch.Eur J Orthod. 1994; 16: 521-529
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: October 16, 2021
Accepted:
January 2021
Received in revised form:
January 2021
Received:
August 2020
Footnotes
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved.
