Clinical outcomes for patients finished with the SureSmile™ method compared with conventional fixed orthodontic therapy

Timothy J Alford, W Eugene Roberts, James K Hartsfield Jr, George J Eckert, Ronald J Snyder, Timothy J Alford, W Eugene Roberts, James K Hartsfield Jr, George J Eckert, Ronald J Snyder

Abstract

Objective: Utilize American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) cast/radiographic evaluation (CRE) to compare a series of 63 consecutive patients, finished with manual wire bending (conventional) treatment, vs a subsequent series of 69 consecutive patients, finished by the same orthodontist using the SureSmile™ (SS) method.

Materials and methods: Records of 132 nonextraction patients were scored by a calibrated examiner blinded to treatment mode. Age and discrepancy index (DI) between groups were compared by t-tests. A chi-square test was used to compare for differences in sex and whether the patient was treated using braces only (no orthopedic correction). Analysis of covariance tested for differences in CRE outcomes and treatment times, with sex and DI included as covariates. A logarithmic transformation of CRE outcomes and treatment times was used because their distributions were skewed. Significance was defined as P < .05.

Results: Compared with conventional finishing, SS patients had significantly lower DI scores, less treatment time (∼7 months), and better CRE scores for first-order alignment-rotation and interproximal space closure; however, second-order root angulation (RA) was inferior.

Conclusion: SS patients were treated in less time to better CRE scores for first-order rotation (AR) and interproximal space closure (IC) but on the average, malocclusions were less complex and second order root alignment was inferior, compared with patients finished with manual wire bending.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
DI scores for patients finished with SureSmile and conventional orthodontics methods (mean ± SE).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Final alignment scores via ABO cast/radiograph evaluation (CRE) for patients finished with SureSmile and conventional orthodontics methods (mean ± SE).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Total treatment (Tx) time for each group was subdivided into Tx time in braces (fixed appliances on the teeth) and Tx time in braces only (no orthopedic Tx) (mean ± SE).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Final alignment scores, determined by ABO cast/radiograph evaluation (CRE), were subdivided into each of the eight components as defined in Table 1 (mean ± SE).

References

    1. Mah J, Sachdeva R. Computer-assisted orthodontic treatment: the SureSmile® process. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120:85–87.
    1. Sachdeva R. SureSmile® technology in a patient-centered orthodontic practice. J Clin Orthod. 2001;35:245–253.
    1. Sachdeva R, Fruge J. F, Fruge A. M, et al. SureSmile®: a report of clinical findings. J Clin Orthod. 2005;39:297–314.
    1. Moles R. Interview by Dr. Redmond: the SureSmile® system in orthodontic practice. J Clin Orthod. 2009;43:161–174.
    1. Casko J. S, Vaden J. L, Kokich V. G, Damone J, James R. D, Riolo M. L, Owens S. E, Bills E. D. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114:589–599.
    1. Pinskaya Y. B, Hsieh T. J, Roberts W. E, Hartsfield J. K. Comprehensive clinical evaluation as an outcome assessment for a graduate orthodontics program. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126:533–543.
    1. Deguchi T, Honjo T, Fukunaga T, Miyawaki S, Roberts W. E, Yamamoto T. 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.
    1. Knierim K, Roberts W. E, Hartsfield J. K. Assessing treatment outcomes for a graduate orthodontic program: follow up study for classes of 2001–2003. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:643e1–648e11.
    1. Campbell C. L, Roberts W. E, Hartsfield J. K, Rong Q. 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.
    1. Vu C. Q, Roberts W. E, Hartsfield J. K, 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;133:9.e1–9.e13.
    1. Detterline D. A. Comparison Between Clinical Outcomes of 0018Inch and 0022Inch Bracket Slot Size Using the ABO Objective Grading System [unpublished MSD thesis] Indianapolis, Ind: Indiana University School of Dentistry; 2009.
    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;128:292–298.
    1. Kalange J. T, Thomas R. G. Indirect bonding: a comprehensive review of the literature. Semin Orthod. 2007;13:3–10.
    1. Richmond S, Shaw W. C, O'Brien K. D, Buchanan I. B, Jones R, Stephens C. D, Roberts C. T, Andrews M. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod. 1992;14:125–139.
    1. Richmond S, Shaw W. C, Roberts C. T, Andrews M. 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.
    1. Onyeaso C. O, Beogole E. A. 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.
    1. Cangialosi T. J, Riolo M. L, Owens S. E, et al. The ABO discrepancy index: a measure of case complexity. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125:270–278.
    1. Riolo M. L, Owens S. E, Dykhouse V. J, et al. ABO resident clinical outcomes study: case complexity as measured by the discrepancy index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127:161–163.
    1. Sander F. M, Sander C, Roberts W. E, Sander F. G. Bending properties of superelastic nickel titanium archwires. J Clin Orthod. 2008;42:581–586.
    1. McKee I. W, Williamson P. C, Lam E. W, Heo G, Glover K. E, Major P. W. The accuracy of 4 panoramic units in the projection of mesiodistal tooth angulations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121:166–175.
    1. Garcia-Figueroa M. A, Raboud D. W, Lam E. W, Heo G, Major P. W. Effect of buccolingual root angulation on the mesiodistal angulation shown on panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:93–99.
    1. Saxe A. K, Louie L. J, Mah J. Efficiency and effectiveness of SureSmile®. World J Orthod. 2010;11:16–22.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe