Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases

Toru Deguchi, Fumie Terao, Tomo Aonuma, Tomoki Kataoka, Yasuyo Sugawara, Takashi Yamashiro, Teruko Takano-Yamamoto

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To validate our hypothesis that there would be significant differences in treatment outcomes, including cephalometric values, degree of root resorption, occlusal indices, and functional aspect, between cases treated with labial and lingual appliances. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four consecutively treated Class II cases with extractions and lingual appliance were compared with 25 matched cases treated with extraction and labial appliance. Orthodontic treatment outcomes were evaluated by cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and an objective grading system (OGS). Additionally, functional analysis was also performed in both groups after orthodontic treatment. Statistical comparison was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test within the groups, and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare between the labial and lingual groups. Results: The only significant difference between the groups was that the interincisal angle was larger in the lingual group than in the labial group. OGS evaluation showed that control over root angulation was significantly worse in the lingual group than in the labial group. There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of root resorption or in functional evaluation. Conclusions: Generally, lingual appliances offer comparable treatment results to those obtained with labial appliances. However, care should be taken with lingual appliances because they are more prone to produce uprighted incisors and root angulation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)400-407
Number of pages8
JournalAngle Orthodontist
Volume85
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Angle Class II Malocclusion
Cephalometry
Lip
Tongue
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Root Resorption
Nonparametric Statistics
Orthodontics
Incisor

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases. / Deguchi, Toru; Terao, Fumie; Aonuma, Tomo; Kataoka, Tomoki; Sugawara, Yasuyo; Yamashiro, Takashi; Takano-Yamamoto, Teruko.

In: Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 85, No. 3, 01.01.2015, p. 400-407.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Deguchi, Toru ; Terao, Fumie ; Aonuma, Tomo ; Kataoka, Tomoki ; Sugawara, Yasuyo ; Yamashiro, Takashi ; Takano-Yamamoto, Teruko. / Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases. In: Angle Orthodontist. 2015 ; Vol. 85, No. 3. pp. 400-407.
@article{e88ce400a7434a4e8474b4f204366b15,
title = "Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases",
abstract = "Objective: To validate our hypothesis that there would be significant differences in treatment outcomes, including cephalometric values, degree of root resorption, occlusal indices, and functional aspect, between cases treated with labial and lingual appliances. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four consecutively treated Class II cases with extractions and lingual appliance were compared with 25 matched cases treated with extraction and labial appliance. Orthodontic treatment outcomes were evaluated by cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and an objective grading system (OGS). Additionally, functional analysis was also performed in both groups after orthodontic treatment. Statistical comparison was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test within the groups, and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare between the labial and lingual groups. Results: The only significant difference between the groups was that the interincisal angle was larger in the lingual group than in the labial group. OGS evaluation showed that control over root angulation was significantly worse in the lingual group than in the labial group. There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of root resorption or in functional evaluation. Conclusions: Generally, lingual appliances offer comparable treatment results to those obtained with labial appliances. However, care should be taken with lingual appliances because they are more prone to produce uprighted incisors and root angulation.",
author = "Toru Deguchi and Fumie Terao and Tomo Aonuma and Tomoki Kataoka and Yasuyo Sugawara and Takashi Yamashiro and Teruko Takano-Yamamoto",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2319/031014-173.1",
language = "English",
volume = "85",
pages = "400--407",
journal = "Angle Orthodontist",
issn = "0003-3219",
publisher = "E H Angle Orthodontists Research & Education Foundation, Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases

AU - Deguchi, Toru

AU - Terao, Fumie

AU - Aonuma, Tomo

AU - Kataoka, Tomoki

AU - Sugawara, Yasuyo

AU - Yamashiro, Takashi

AU - Takano-Yamamoto, Teruko

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Objective: To validate our hypothesis that there would be significant differences in treatment outcomes, including cephalometric values, degree of root resorption, occlusal indices, and functional aspect, between cases treated with labial and lingual appliances. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four consecutively treated Class II cases with extractions and lingual appliance were compared with 25 matched cases treated with extraction and labial appliance. Orthodontic treatment outcomes were evaluated by cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and an objective grading system (OGS). Additionally, functional analysis was also performed in both groups after orthodontic treatment. Statistical comparison was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test within the groups, and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare between the labial and lingual groups. Results: The only significant difference between the groups was that the interincisal angle was larger in the lingual group than in the labial group. OGS evaluation showed that control over root angulation was significantly worse in the lingual group than in the labial group. There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of root resorption or in functional evaluation. Conclusions: Generally, lingual appliances offer comparable treatment results to those obtained with labial appliances. However, care should be taken with lingual appliances because they are more prone to produce uprighted incisors and root angulation.

AB - Objective: To validate our hypothesis that there would be significant differences in treatment outcomes, including cephalometric values, degree of root resorption, occlusal indices, and functional aspect, between cases treated with labial and lingual appliances. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four consecutively treated Class II cases with extractions and lingual appliance were compared with 25 matched cases treated with extraction and labial appliance. Orthodontic treatment outcomes were evaluated by cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and an objective grading system (OGS). Additionally, functional analysis was also performed in both groups after orthodontic treatment. Statistical comparison was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test within the groups, and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare between the labial and lingual groups. Results: The only significant difference between the groups was that the interincisal angle was larger in the lingual group than in the labial group. OGS evaluation showed that control over root angulation was significantly worse in the lingual group than in the labial group. There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of root resorption or in functional evaluation. Conclusions: Generally, lingual appliances offer comparable treatment results to those obtained with labial appliances. However, care should be taken with lingual appliances because they are more prone to produce uprighted incisors and root angulation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929406463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929406463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2319/031014-173.1

DO - 10.2319/031014-173.1

M3 - Article

VL - 85

SP - 400

EP - 407

JO - Angle Orthodontist

JF - Angle Orthodontist

SN - 0003-3219

IS - 3

ER -