Search

Introduction The aims of this study were to assess the peer assessment rating (PAR) index in relation to perceived treatment needs for maxillary protrusion in Japanese subjects and to investigate how perceived orthodontic treatment needs change with increased experience in dentistry and orthodontics. Methods The subjects were 155 persons (73 men, 82 women; mean age, 24.2 years; SD, 4.7 years) including dental students, residents, and orthodontists. We showed them casts from 10 patients with untreated maxillary protrusion and gave them a questionnaire with a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS), concerning their perceptions of orthodontic treatment needs. The PAR index was used for cast evaluation. Results The PAR index showed significant correlations with the VAS scores. On the casts evaluated with a PAR index below 17, there was no difference in VAS scores between the 3 groups; however, orthodontists perceived significantly greater treatment needs than did students and residents on casts with a PAR index of 18 or 19. The VAS scores were significantly increased when casts with a PAR index of more than 20 and overjet above 5.0 mm were evaluated. Orthodontists and residents perceived greater treatment needs than students on assessing occlusions with severe maxillary protrusion. Conclusions The PAR index is clinically useful to evaluate malocclusion, and the perception of treatment needs was significantly greater when the maxillary protrusion cast had a PAR index of more than 20 and overjet above 5.0 mm. Perceived needs for orthodontic treatment for maxillary protrusion changed with increasing experience and skills in dentistry and orthodontics.

Introduction The purpose of this study was to compare the occlusal stability of Class II malocclusion treatment with and without extraction of 2 maxillary premolars. Methods A sample of 59 records from patients with complete Class II malocclusion was used. This sample was divided into 2 groups with the following characteristics: group 1, comprising 29 patients treated without extractions, and group 2, comprising 30 patients treated with extraction of 2 maxillary premolars. Dental cast measurements were obtained before and after treatment and at a minimum of 2.4 years after treatment. The pretreatment, posttreatment, and postretention occlusal statuses were evaluated with the peer assesment rating index. The occlusal indexes at the postretention stage and the posttreatment changes and percentages of posttreatment changes were compared with t tests. Results The nonextraction and the 2 maxillary premolar extraction treatment protocols of complete Class II malocclusions had no statistically significant differences in occlusal stability. Conclusions Finishing Class II malocclusion treatment with the molars in a Class II relationship has similar occlusal stability as finishing with the molars in a Class I relationship.