Application of the grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs – ABO/OGS in orthodontics: a topic review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfo.v36n1a8Keywords:
treatment outcome, duration of therapy, orthodontics, orthodontic appliances fixedAbstract
In the last years, clinicians and researchers have evaluated orthodontic treatment outcomes through intraoral examination or the use of indices. One of the most frequently used indices is the Grading System for Dental Casts and Panoramic Radiographs System (CRE). A literature search was carried out in different databases such as PubMed, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane, and other sources, through a structured strategy using keywords and Boolean operators. The references that met the search criteria and the researchers' examination were obtained in full text, classified, and analyzed to collect information on the 4 set out topics: 1. CRE (ABO/OGS) in the evaluation of the quality of results, 2. CRE (ABO/OGS) and other indices, 3. CRE (ABO/OGS) digital implementation, 4. CRE (ABO/OGS) regional implementation. 103 articles were found, of which 52 were selected. The use of CRE worldwide was observed, showing that it is a versatile tool in multiple fields, such as analysis of therapeutic management, type of equipment used, measurement stability, performance of university and private services, among other topics aimed at knowing the result of orthodontic treatment. From other part, its use along with other indices seems to be a complement that would allow analysis of dental, skeletal, and facial variables not contemplated. The digital implementation of the CRE (ABO/OGS) shows to be a promising tool that after adjustments can bring advantages in the analysis of results. Likewise, it has been found that the use of CRE (ABO/OGS) within universities has generated improvement in treatment results when compared over time.
Downloads
References
Abei Y, Nelson S, Amberman BD, Hans MG. Comparing orthodontic treatment outcome between orthodontists and general dentists with the ABO index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126(5): 544–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.11.020
Akinci Cansunar H, Uysal T. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in nonextraction, 2 maxillary premolar extraction, and 4 premolar extraction protocols with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J OrthodDentofacial Orthop. 2014; 145(5): 595–602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.11.022
Alava Loor EM. Evaluación de los tratamientos terminados según los parámetros de la American Board Of Orthodontics en pacientes atendidos en la Clínica de Postgrado de Ortodoncia de la Facultad de Odontología de la Universidad de Guayaquil periodo 2013-2015, 2017 [Tesis]. Guayaquil: Universidad de Guayaquil; 2017.
Al-Jewair T, Ryan V, Warunek S. Orthodontic treatment characteristics and outcomes in an educational setting. Int J Dent. 2020: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8367232
AlQatami FM, Alouini O, Knösel M, Helms HJ, Schwestka-Polly R. Objective treatment outcome assessment of a completely customized lingual appliance: a retrospective study. Int Orthod. 2021; 19(3): 445-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.06.004
Barbosa Lis DM, Zapata Noreña O, Carvajal A, Franco CM, Rodriguez Aguirre SA et al. Resultado de tratamientos ortodóncicos y su relación con la complejidad de la maloclusión. Int J Odontostomat. 2014; 8(2): 201–06. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-381X2014000200008
Brown PN, Kulbersh R, Kaczynski R. Clinical outcomes assessment of consecutively finished patients in a 24-month orthodontic residency: a 5-year perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139(5): 665–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.036
Burgos-Arcega NA, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Morales-Valenzuela AA, Hegazy-Hassan W, Lara-Carrillo E, Toral-Rizo VH et al. Agreement of the discrepancy index obtained using digital and manual techniques: a comparative study. Appl Sci. 2022; 12(12): 6105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app12126105
Camargo Prada D, Niño Espinel AM, Olaya Gamboa ER, Serrano Ospina JC. Evaluación en la calidad de los tratamientos de ortodoncia finalizados por los estudiantes de la Especialización de Ortodoncia de la Universidad Santo Tomás según los parámetros ABO [Tesis]. Bucaramanga: Universidad Santo Tomas; 2020. Disponible https://repository.usta.edu.co/handle/11634/21190
Campbell CL, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK, 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(6): 822–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.05.036
Cansunar HA, Uysal T. Relationship between pretreatment case complexity and orthodontic clinical outcomes determined by the American Board of Orthodontics criteria. Angle Orthod. 2014; 84(6): 974–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/010114-001.1
Cardier Gonzalez FB, Santacoloma Jiménez S, Valenzuela Peña P, Martínez León R. Análisis del estado final de alineación dental y oclusión de los tratamientos ortodóncicos realizados en la Pontificia Universidad Javeriana evaluado mediante el Sistema de Calificación Objetiva (índice OGS) de 2015 a 2016 [Tesis]. Bogotá,:Universidad Javeriana; 2017. Disponible en http://hdl.handle.net/10554/39821
Carvajal Flórez A, Barbosa Liz DM, Zapata Noreña O, Marín J, Afanador S, Plaza SP. Relationship between OGS score and smile type and arch. Revista Científica Sociedad de Ortodoncia. 2016; 3(2): 47-55.
Carvajal-Flórez A, Barbosa-Lis DM, Zapata-Noreña OA, Marín-Velásquez JA, Afanador-Bayona SA. Orthodontic treatment outcomes obtained by application of a finishing protocol. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016; 21(2). 88–94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590%2F2177-6709.21.2.088-094.oar
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(5): 589-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70179-9
Chaison ET, Liu X, Tuncay OC. The quality of treatment in the adult orthodontic patient as judged by orthodontists and measured by the Objective Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139(4 Suppl): S69–S75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.07.018
Chalabi O, Preston CB, Al-Jewair TS, Tabbaa S. A comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes using the Objective Grading System (OGS) and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index’. Aust Orthod J. 2015; 31(2): 157–64.
Chung CH, Tadlock LP, Barone N, Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Sabott DG, Foley PF et al. American Board of Orthodontics: time for change. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 153(3): 321–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.12.005
Cook DR, Harris EF, Vaden JL. Comparison of university and private-practice orthodontic treatment outcomes with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Dentofacial Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127(6): 707–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.014
Coronel Mendoza JC. Efectividad del tratamiento de ortodoncia con brackets de autoligado vs brackets con ligadura elastomérica [Tesis]. Quito: Universidad Central del Ecuador; 2017. Disponible en http://www.dspace.uce.edu.ec/handle/25000/10450
Costalos PA, Sarraf K, Cangialosi TJ, Efstratiadis S. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital model analysis for the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system for dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(5), 624–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.08.017
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(4): 434–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.030
Detterline DD, Isikbay SC, Brizendine EJ, Kula KS. Clinical outcomes of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot using the ABO Objective grading system. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(3): 528–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/060309-315.1
Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(3): 292–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.002
Dragstrem K, Galang-Boquiren MTS, Obrez, A, Costa Viana MG, Grubb JE, Kusnoto B. Accuracy of digital American Board of Orthodontics discrepancy index measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 148(1): 60–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.02.027
Farhandian N, Miresmaeili AF, Soltani MK. Comparison of extraction and non-extraction orthodontic treatment using the Objective Grading System. J Dent (Tehran). 2005; 2(3): 91-5.
Hildebrand JE, Palomo JM, Palomo, L, Sivik M, Hans M. Evaluation of a software program for applying the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system to digital casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(2): 283–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.035
Hong M, Kook Y, Baek S, Kim M. Comparison of treatment outcome assessment for Class I Malocclusion patients: peer assessment rating versus American Board of Orthodontics-Objective Grading System. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2015; 7(1): 6-15. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5856/JKDS.2014.7.1.6
Hsieh TJ, Pinskaya Y, Roberts WE. Assessment of orthodontic treatment outcomes: early treatment versus late treatment. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(2): 162-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075%3C0158:aootoe%3E2.0.co;2
Jain M, Varghese J, Mascarenhas R, Mogra S, Shetty S, Dhakar N. Assessment of clinical outcomes of Roth and MBT bracket prescription using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. Contemp Clin Dent. 2013; 4(3): 307-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237x.118361
Ke Y, Zhu Y, Zhu M. A comparison of treatment effectiveness between clear aligner and fixed appliance therapies. BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0695-z
Knierim K, Roberts WE, Hartsfield J. Assessing treatment outcomes for a graduate orthodontics program: follow-up study for the classes of 2001-2003. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(5): 648.e1-e11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.07.014
Kuncio D, Maganzini A, Shelton C, Freeman K. Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment postretention outcomes compared using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective grading system. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77(5): 864–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/100106-398.1
Li W, Wang S, Zhang Y. The effectiveness of the Invisalign appliance in extraction cases using the ABO model grading system: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(5): 8276-82.
Lin E, Julien K, Kesterke M, Buschang PH. Differences in finished case quality between Invisalign and traditional fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2022; 92(2): 173-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/032921-246.1
Marques LS, Freitas N, Pereira LJ, Ramos-Jorge ML. Quality of orthodontic treatment performed by orthodontists and general dentists. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82(1): 102–06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/061311-389.1
Mejías R, Jesús O. Identification of clinical Outcomes from University Of Carabobo orthodontic residency program based on American Board of Orthodontic cast criteria. Revista odontológica de los andes. 2017; 12(2).
Miranda PMB, Fernandes LQP, Sevillano MGC, Carvalho FAR, Capelli J. Reliability of a digital system for models measurements in BBO grading: a pilot study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2022; 27(1): e2219388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.27.1.e2219388.oar
Murakami K, Deguchi T, Hashimoto T, Imai, M, Miyawaki S, Takano T. Need for training sessions for orthodontists in the use of the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132(4), 427.e1–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.02.050
Neoh SP, Komoltri C, Viwattanatipa N. Treatment outcome differences between pass and fail scores and correlation between cephalometric changes and cast-radiograph evaluation of the American Board of Orthodontics. J Orthod Sci. 2018; 7(1): 22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_33_18
Nett BC, Huang GJ. Long-term posttreatment changes measured by the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am Journal Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127(4): 444–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.03.029
Okunami TR, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Evans CA, Sadowsky C, Fadavi S. Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(1): 51–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.042
Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. 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(2): 248–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.045
Papageorgiou SN, Höchli D, Eliades T. Outcomes of comprehensive fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: a systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological overview. Korean J Orthod. 2017; 47(6): 401-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.6.401
Papageorgiou SN, Tilen R, Vandevska-Radunovic V, Eliades T. Occlusal outcome after orthodontic treatment with preadjusted straight-wire and standard edgewise appliances. J Orofac Orthop. 2021; 82(5): 321–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00273-z
Pinskaya YB, Hsieh T, Roberts WE, Hartsfield J. Comprehensive clinical evaluation as an outcome assessment for a graduate orthodontics program. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 126(5): 533–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.017
Pulfer RM, Drake CT, Maupome G, Eckert GJ, Roberts WE. The association of malocclusion complexity and orthodontic treatment outcomes. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(3): 468–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/042308-227.1
Restrepo LG, Peláez JF, Tadlock LP. IBC: Índice Board CES. Rev CES Odont. 2014; 27(1): 106-17.
Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi CL. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 149(2): 161–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.029
Safavi SM, Eslamian L, Tahmasbi S, Mahdian A, Motamedian SR. Treatment outcome assessment by orthodontists: attitude and practice. J Islam Dent Assoc Iran. 2019, 31(2): 117-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30699/jidai.31.2.117
Song GY, Baumrind S, Zhao Z, Ding Y, Bai Y, Wang L et al. Validation of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System for assessing the treatment outcomes of Chinese patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2013; 144(3): 391–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.018
Struble BH, Huang GJ. Comparison of prospectively and retrospectively selected American Board of Orthodontics cases. Am J Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(1): 6.e1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.05.016
The American Board of Orthodontics. Grading system for dental cast and panoramic radiographs. Missouri: ABO; 2012. Disponible https://www.americanboardortho.com/media/1191/grading-system-casts-radiographs.pdf
Tijerina Garza DL. Medición de modelos terminados en el Posgrado de Ortodoncia de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León bajo los criterios del Board Americano fase III [Tesis]. Nuevo León: Universidad Nuevo León; 2014.
Viwattanatipa N, Buapuean W, Komoltri C. Relationship between discrepancy index and the objective grading system in Thai board of orthodontics patients. Orthod Waves. 2016; 75(3): 54–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2016.08.001
Vu CQ, Roberts WE, Hartsfield JK, Ofner S. Treatment complexity index for assessing the relationship of treatment duration and outcomes in a graduate orthodontics clinic. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(1): 9e.1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.012
Zapata-Noreña O, Carvajal-Flórez C, Barbosa-Liz D. Orthodontic treatment results evaluated for individual teeth according to the Objective Grading System. J World Fed Orthod. 2017; 6(1): 6-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2017.02.002
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Facultad de Odontología Universidad de Antioquia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Notice
Copyright comprises moral and patrimonial rights.
1. Moral rights: are born at the moment of the creation of the work, without the need to register it. They belong to the author in a personal and unrelinquishable manner; also, they are imprescriptible, unalienable and non negotiable. Moral rights are the right to paternity of the work, the right to integrity of the work, the right to maintain the work unedited or to publish it under a pseudonym or anonymously, the right to modify the work, the right to repent and, the right to be mentioned, in accordance with the definitions established in article 40 of Intellectual property bylaws of the Universidad (RECTORAL RESOLUTION 21231 of 2005).
2. Patrimonial rights: they consist of the capacity of financially dispose and benefit from the work trough any mean. Also, the patrimonial rights are relinquishable, attachable, prescriptive, temporary and transmissible, and they are caused with the publication or divulgation of the work. To the effect of publication of articles in the journal Revista de la Facultad de Odontología, it is understood that Universidad de Antioquia is the owner of the patrimonial rights of the contents of the publication.
The content of the publications is the exclusive responsibility of the authors. Neither the printing press, nor the editors, nor the Editorial Board will be responsible for the use of the information contained in the articles.
I, we, the author(s), and through me (us), the Entity for which I, am (are) working, hereby transfer in a total and definitive manner and without any limitation, to the Revista Facultad de Odontología Universidad de Antioquia, the patrimonial rights corresponding to the article presented for physical and digital publication. I also declare that neither this article, nor part of it has been published in another journal.
Open Access Policy
The articles published in our Journal are fully open access, as we consider that providing the public with free access to research contributes to a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Creative Commons License
The Journal offers its content to third parties without any kind of economic compensation or embargo on the articles. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license, known as Attribution – NonCommercial – Share Alike (BY-NC-SA), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited and that the new productions are licensed under the same conditions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
