Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.41(3) > 1043661

Son, Cha, Chung, and Kim: Quantitative evaluation and affecting factors of post-treatment relapse tendency

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate relapse tendency after orthodontic treatment and determine the contributing factors by using the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS).

Methods

The subjects were 80 patients with more than 2 years of retention period after completing orthodontic treatment at the dental hospitals of Busan University, Kyunghee University, and Dankook University. The posttreatment (T2) and post-retention (T3) ABO-OGS measurements were analyzed in relation to age, gender, Angle's classification, extraction, retention period, and pretreatment condition (initial peer assessment rating (PAR) index, T1) by multiple regression analysis.

Results

Among the 7 ABO-OGS criteria, alignment worsened but occlusal contact and interproximal contact improved in T3, but not in T2 (p < 0.01). The 4 other criteria showed no significant differences. Multiple regression analysis showed that alignment, occlusal relationship, overjet, and interproximal contact were significant linear models, but with a low explanation power. Age, gender, Angle's classification, extraction, retention period, and pretreatment condition (initial PAR index, T1) had little influence on the ABO-OGS changes between T3 and T2.

Conclusions

An orthodontist's understanding of post-treatment relapse tendency can be useful in diagnosis and during patient consultation.

Figures and Tables

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of subjects
kjod-41-154-i001
Table 2
Descriptive statistics of initial peer assessment rating index at T1 stage
kjod-41-154-i002

PAR, Peer assessment rating; T1, before treatment; SD, standard diviation.

Table 3
Paired t-test of American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system between T2 and T3 stage
kjod-41-154-i003

ABO-OGS, American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system; T2, after treatment; T3, 2 years after treatment; SD, standard deviation. *p < 0.01.

Table 4
Correlation coefficients of ABO-OGS between T2 and T3 stage and affecting factors
kjod-41-154-i004

ABO-OGS, American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system; T2, after treatment; T3, 2 years after treatment; PAR, peer assessment rating. *p < 0.05, p < 0.01.

Table 5
Results of stepwise multiple linear regression analysis to evaluate the effect of independent variables on ABO-OGS
kjod-41-154-i005

ABO-OGS, American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system; B, unstandardized coefficients; SE, standard error; Beta, standardized coefficients; PAR, peer assessment rating. *p < 0.05, p < 0.01.

References

1. Hellman M. Fundamental principles and expedient compromises in orthodontic procedures. Transactions of the American Association of Orthodontists. 1945. St. Louis: Mosby;46.
crossref
2. Uhde MD, Sadowsky C, BeGole EA. Long-term stability of dental relationships after orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1983. 53:240–252.
3. Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Işiksal E. Relapse of anterior crowding in patients treated with extraction and nonextraction of premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006. 129:775–784.
crossref
4. Carmen RB. A study of mandibular anterior crowding in untreated cases and its predictability. Am J Orthod. 1980. 77:346–347.
crossref
5. Little RM, Wallen TR, Riedel RA. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment-first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod. 1981. 80:349–365.
crossref
6. Rossouw PE, Preston CB, Lombard C. A longitudinal evaluation of extraction versus nonextraction treatment with special reference to the posttreatment irregularity of the lower incisors. Semin Orthod. 1999. 5:160–170.
crossref
7. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod. 1975. 68:554–563.
crossref
8. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 1992. 14:125–139.
crossref
9. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. American Board of Orthodontics. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998. 114:589–599.
crossref
10. Ludwig MK. An analysis of anterior overbite relationship changes during and following orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1966. 36:204–210.
11. Al Yami EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, van't Hof MA. Stability of orthodontic treatment outcome: follow-up until 10 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999. 115:300–304.
crossref
12. Otuyemi OD, Jones SP. Long-term evaluation of treated class II division 1 malocclusions utilizing the PAR index. Br J Orthod. 1995. 22:171–178.
crossref
13. Deguchi T, Honjo T, Fukunaga T, Miyawaki S, Roberts WE, 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.
crossref
14. Shah AA. Postretention changes in mandibular crowding: a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003. 124:298–308.
crossref
15. Sauget E, Covell DA Jr, Boero RP, Lieber WS. Comparison of occlusal contacts with use of Hawley and clear overlay retainers. Angle Orthod. 1997. 67:223–230.
16. Morton S, Pancherz H. Changes in functional occlusion during the postorthodontic retention period: a prospective longitudinal clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009. 135:310–315.
crossref
17. Ormiston JP, Huang GJ, Little RM, Decker JD, Seuk GD. Retrospective analysis of long-term stable and unstable orthodontic treatment outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005. 128:568–574.
crossref
18. Birkeland K, Furevik J, Bøe OE, Wisth PJ. Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index. Eur J Orthod. 1997. 19:279–288.
crossref
19. Kim HH, Lee KH, Kim JC. The treatment change of PAR (peer assessment rating) index and cephalometric measurements in Class I malocclusion patients. Korean J Orthod. 1999. 29:277–284.
20. de Freitas KM, Janson G, de Freitas MR, Pinzan A, Henriques JF, Pinzan-Vercelino CR. Influence of the quality of the finished occlusion on postretention occlusal relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007. 132:428.e9–428.e14.
crossref
21. Nett BC, Huang GJ. Long-term posttreatment changes measured by the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005. 127:444–450.
crossref
22. Driscoll-Gilliland J, Buschang PH, Behrents RG. An evaluation of growth and stability in untreated and treated subjects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001. 120:588–597.
crossref
23. Schudy GF. Posttreatment craniofacial growth: Its implications in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1974. 65:39–57.
crossref
24. Vaden JL, Harris EF, Gardner RL. Relapse revisited. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997. 111:543–553.
crossref
25. Little RM, Riedel RA, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 93:423–428.
crossref
TOOLS
Similar articles