The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quantitative evaluation and affecting factors of post-treatment relapse tendency

교정치료 후 나타나는 재발 경향에 대한 정량적 평가와 영향을 미치는 요소에 대한 연구

  • Son, Woo-Sung (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Chung, Dong-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Kim, Tae-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 손우성 (부산대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 차경석 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 정동화 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 김태우 (서울대학교 치과대학 교정학교실)
  • Received : 2010.10.30
  • Accepted : 2011.04.13
  • Published : 2011.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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 posttreatment relapse tendency can be useful in diagnosis and during patient consultation.

본 연구는 교합 상태를 객관적이고 정량적으로 평가하기 위해 개발된 American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO-OGS)을 이용하여 교정치료 후 나타나는 재발 경향을 평가하고 이에 영향을 줄 수 있는 요소들과의 상관관계를 알아보고자 시행되었다. 부산대학교, 경희대학교와 단국대학교 치과병원 교정과에서 포괄적 교정치료를 받은 환자 중 치료종료 후 2년 이상의 유지기간을 갖는 80명의 환자를 대상으로 초진 시(T1)의 peer assessment rating (PAR) index, 치료 후(T2)와 유지 후(T3) 시기의 ABO-OGS를 측정하여 T2와 T3 간의 변화 양상을 각 항목별로 측정하였고, 나이, 성별, Angle 분류, 발치 여부, 유지기간, 초진 시의 상태와의 상관관계를 조사하기 위해 다중 회귀분석을 시행하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. T2 시기와 비교하여 T3 시기에 ABO-OGS의 7개 항목 중 치아 배열(alignment)은 악화되었으며, 교합 접촉(occlusal contact)과 치간 접촉(interproximal contact)은 개선되었고, 나머지 4개의 항목에서는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 다중 회귀분석을 시행한 결과, 유의한 회귀모형은 치아 배열(alignment), 교합 관계(occlusal relationship), 수평피개(overjet), 치간 접촉(interproximal contact) 항목이었으나, 회귀 모형들의 설명력이 낮았으며, 연령, 성별, Angle 분류, 발치 여부, 유지기간, 초진시의 상태(initial PAR index, T1)는 T2 시기와 T3 시기의 ABO-OGS 변화량을 설명하는 데 큰 영향을 미치지는 않는 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. Hellman M. Fundamental principles and expedient compromises in orthodontic procedures. In Transactions of the American Association of Orthodontists. St. Louis: Mosby; 1945. p. 46.
  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, Isiksal E. Relapse of anterior crowding in patients treated with extraction and nonextraction of premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:775-784 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.02.022
  4. Carmen RB. A study of mandibular anterior crowding in untreated cases and its predictability. Am J Orthod 1980;77: 346-347.
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(81)90171-8
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(99)80007-3
  7. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-563. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90086-X
  8. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, et el. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:125-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.2.125
  9. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ, et al. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:589-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70179-9
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70333-1
  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. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.22.2.171
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.030
  14. Shah AA. Postretention changes in mandibular crowding: a review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:298-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00447-5
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.041
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.07.047
  18. Birkeland K, Furevik J, Boe OE, Wisth PJ. Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:279-288. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/19.3.279
  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-e14.
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.029
  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. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.118778
  23. Schudy GF. Posttreatment craniofacial growth: Its implications in orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1974;65:39-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(74)90156-0
  24. Vaden JL, Harris EF, Gardner RL. Relapse revisited. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:543-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70291-9
  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. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90102-3

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Treatment Outcome Assessment for Class I Malocclusion Patients: Peer Assessment Rating versus American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System vol.7, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5856/jkds.2014.7.1.6