[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
Main Menu
Journal Information::
About the Journal
Aim & Scope
Editorial Board
Indexing & Abstracting
Advertising Policy
Editorial Policies::
Peer Review Process
Section Policies
Open Access Policy
Ethical Requirements
Publication Ethics
Plagiarism Policy
Article Processing Charges (APC)
Authorship Conflicts
Intellectual Properties
Articles archive::
All Issues
Current Issue
For Authors::
Online Submmision
Instruction to Authors
Peer review process
Publication Ethics
Contact us::
Contact Information
Contact us
Site Facilities::
Site map
Search contents
Top 10 contents
Inform to friends
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
Last site contents
:: Contact Us
:: Volume 31, Issue 2 (4-2019) ::
J Iran Dent Assoc 2019, 31(2): 117-125 Back to browse issues page
Treatment Outcome Assessment by Orthodontists: Attitude and Practice
Seyed Mohammadreza Safavi * 1, Ladan Eslamian2 , Soodeh Tahmasbi3 , Arezoo Mahdian4 , Saeed Reza Motamedian5
1- Professor, Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medi-cal Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Professor, Dentofacial Deformities Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Postgraduate Student, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5- Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (3245 Views)
Background and Aim: Evaluation of the treatment outcome is an important stage in every healthcare system, including orthodontics. This study aimed to assess the atti-tude and practice regarding treatment outcome assessment (TOA) among Iranian orthodontists.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional survey, a questionnaire was developed, which consisted of demographic, attitude, and practice sections. Content validity was evaluated using content validity index (CVI), and reliability of the answers was evaluated using test-retest method and Kappa statistics. The online ques-tionnaire was sent to a Telegram group including 315 Iranian orthodontists and ortho-dontic residents. Only graduated orthodontists with more than two years of experience were included.
Results: The average CVI was 0.95, and Kappa value was greater than 0.6. Totally, 66 orthodontists participated in the survey. Almost all orthodontists acknowledged the importance and positive effects of TOA. Seventy seven percent and 87.9% of the par-ticipants stated that treatment duration and stability, respectively, should be consid-ered while evaluating treatment outcome. The most important disadvantage of TOA was its time-consuming nature (56.1%). The best criterion for the evaluation of treatment outcome was “treatment objectives” (89.4%). Photographs (84.8%) were the most common post-treatment document followed by panoramic ra-diographs (72.7%). Also, 23% and 65.2% of the participants “always” or “usually” performed TOA, respectively. TOA was mostly performed subjectively (84.8%) and during the debonding session (48.5%).
Conclusion: The results indicated that almost all orthodontists participating in this survey were aware of the importance of assessment of treatment outcome. Most of them usually performed such an assessment using subjective methods.
Keywords: Orthodontics, Outcome Assessment, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome
Full-Text [PDF 764 kb]   (1230 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Orthodontics
References
1. Gottlieb EL. Grading your orthodontic treatment results. J Clin Orthod. 1975 Mar; 9 (3):155-61.
2. 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 Apr;127(4):434-43.
3. de Beurs E, den Hollander-Gijsman ME, van Rood YR, van der Wee NJ, Giltay EJ, van Noor-den MS, et al. Routine outcome monitoring in the Netherlands: practical experiences with a web-based strategy for the assessment of treatment outcome in clinical practice. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2011 Jan-Feb;18(1):1-12.
4. Veen J, Raviglione M, Rieder HL, Migliori GB, Graf P, Grzemska M, et al. Standardized tuberculosis treatment outcome monitoring in Europe. Recommendations of a Working Group of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Region of the International :union: Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUATLD) for uniform reporting by cohort analysis of treatment outcome in tuberculosis patients. Eur Respir J. 1998 Aug;12(2):505-10.
5. Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003). Is It Time for Clinicians to Routinely Track Patient Outcome? A Meta-Analysis. Clini-cal Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(3):288-301.
6. 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 Nov; 114(5):589-99.
7. 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 Apr; 14(2):125-39.
8. Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). J Orthod. 2000 Jun;27(2):149-62.
9. Cordua T, Ursini R, Giuliante L, Deli R. The excellence challenge in orthodontics: clinical use of an objective grading system for orthodontic cases. Prog Orthod 2009;10(2):4-15.
10. Richmond S, Phillips CJ, Dunstan F, Daniels C, Durning P, Leahy F. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of orthodontic provision. Dent Update. 2004 Apr;31(3):146-52.
11. Templeton KM, Powell R, Moore MB, Williams AC, Sandy JR. Are the Peer Assessment Rating Index and the Index of Treatment Complexity, Outcome, and Need suitable measures for orthognathic outcomes? Eur J Orthod. 2006 Oct;28(5):462-6.
12. Abrams D, Davidson M, Harrick J, Harcourt P, Zylinski M, Clancy J. Monitoring the change: current trends in outcome measure usage in physiotherapy. Man Ther. 2006 Feb;11(1):46-53.
13. Beezhold J. Influence of Feedback and Attitude of Patient and Clinician Toward Outcome Measurement. Eur Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;30(Suppl 1):137.
14. Jensen-Doss A, Hawley KM. Understanding bar-riers to evidence-based assessment: clinician attitudes toward standardized assessment tools. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2010; 39(6):885-96.
15. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res. 1986 Nov-Dec; 35 (6):382-5.
16. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa sta-tistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012; 22(3): 276-82.
17. Hickham JH. Directional edgewise orthodontic approach. 5. J Clin Orthod. 1975 Mar; 9(3):143-9,152-4.
18. Klaus K, Stark P, Serbesis TSP, Pancherz H, Ruf S. Excellent versus unacceptable orthodontic results: influencing factors. Eur J Orthod. 2017 Nov 30;39(6):615-621.
19. 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 Mar; 115(3):300-4.
20. Nett BC, Huang GJ. Long-term posttreatment changes measured by the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Apr; 127(4): 444-50; quiz 516.
21. Burt BA, Albino JE, Carlos JP, Cohen LK, Dubner R, Gershen JA, et al. Advances in the epidemiological study of oral-facial diseases. Adv Dent Res. 1989 May;3(1):30-41.
22. Bergström K, Halling A, Huggare J, Johansson L. Treatment difficulty and treatment outcome in orthodontic care. Eur J Orthod. 1998 Apr;20(2):145-57.
23. Riolo ML, Vaden JL. Standard of care: why it is necessary. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Oct;136(4):494-6.
24. Vig KW, Weyant R, O'Brien K, Bennett E. Developing outcome measures in orthodontics that reflect patient and provider values. Semin Orthod. 1999 Jun;5(2):85-95.
25. Song GY, Zhao ZH, Ding Y, Bai YX, Wang L, He H, et al. Reliability assessment and correlation analysis of evaluating orthodontic treatment outcome in Chinese patients. Int J Oral Sci. 2014 Mar;6(1):50-55.
26. Turbill EA, Richmond S, Andrews M. A preliminary comparison of the DPB's grading of completed orthodontic cases with the PAR Index. Br J Orthod. 1994 Aug;21(3):279-85.
27. Angermann R, Berg R. Evaluation of orthodontic treatment success in patients with pronounced Angle Class III. [Article in English, German]. J Orofac Orthop. 1999;60(4):246-58.
28. Nulty DD. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ. 2008 Apr;33(3):301-14.
Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

XML     Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Safavi S M, Eslamian L, Tahmasbi S, Mahdian A, Motamedian S R. Treatment Outcome Assessment by Orthodontists: Attitude and Practice. J Iran Dent Assoc 2019; 31 (2) :117-125
URL: http://jida.ir/article-1-2036-en.html
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 31, Issue 2 (4-2019) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Iranian Dental Association

AWT IMAGE

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645