Treatment acceptance in adult patients with anterior open bite: A National Dental Practice-Based Research Network study.

INTRODUCTION: Orthodontists have many techniques to treat anterior open bites and must involve patients in making treatment decisions. This study aimed to investigate orthodontic treatment plan acceptance by United States adults with anterior open bites and to identify associations between treatment acceptance and patient demographics and dentofacial characteristics. METHODS: A prospective, observational cohort study enrolled the patients of 91 orthodontic providers. A total of 345 adults were included in the sample. Provider personal and practice demographics were captured. Patient demographics, treatment goals, dentofacial characteristics, and reasons for not accepting the recommended plans were recorded. Adjusted regression models were used to identify associations between patient characteristics and the likelihood of accepting the most highly recommended plan. RESULTS: Approximately 78% of patients accepted the most highly recommended treatment plan. 60% of the patients who were recommended surgical plans accepted them. Patients with a history of orthodontics and a concave profile were more likely to accept the most highly recommended plan. Insurance coverage for orthognathic surgery was associated with a higher acceptance rate for surgery. Severe crowding was associated with a lower acceptance of surgery. The most common reasons for declining the recommended plan were not wanting jaw surgery and considering the treatment to be too invasive, risky, and/or costly. CONCLUSIONS: Patient acceptance is less common at higher levels of invasiveness of treatment. Prior orthodontic treatment, concave profile, and insurance coverage for surgery were associated with accepting treatment. Most patients accepted a surgical plan when it was the most recommended option.

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Adult Anterior Open Bite Study: Patient satisfaction with treatment.

INTRODUCTION: This article evaluates and reports on the satisfaction of adult patients across the United States who received orthodontic treatment for anterior open bite malocclusion. The factors that influence satisfaction are also described. METHODS: Practitioners were recruited from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. On joining the Network, practitioner demographics and information on their practices were acquired. Practitioners enrolled their adult patients in active treatment for anterior open bite. Patient demographics, patient dentofacial characteristics, and details regarding previous and current treatment were collected through questionnaires at enrollment (T1). Pretreatment lateral cephalograms and intraoral frontal photographs were submitted. Treatment performed, and details related to treatment outcome were recorded through questionnaires at the end of active treatment (T2). Posttreatment lateral cephalograms and intraoral frontal photographs were submitted. Patient satisfaction at T2 was assessed using a 5-point Likert-type scale and open-ended responses. Predictive univariate models were developed to evaluate the factors that affect patient satisfaction. Open-ended responses were reviewed for general trends. RESULTS: T2 data were received for 260 patients, and 248 of these patients completed and returned the patient satisfaction questionnaires. High levels of satisfaction were found in this sample of adult patients receiving treatment for anterior open bite malocclusion. Specifically, 96% of the sample reported being very or somewhat satisfied. Only 10 patients (4%) were not satisfied with the treatment provided or an element of the final result. Successful open bite closure, treatment modality, and certain patient characteristics may affect patient satisfaction. However, there was insufficient power to demonstrate statistical significance because of the very low number of dissatisfied patients. Open-ended responses directly associated with patient satisfaction were received from 23 patients (9%). They relayed positive, neutral, and negative feelings about the treatment received and final results. Additional responses regarding the orthodontic treatment in general, but not specifically linked to patient satisfaction, were received from 119 patients (48%). These comments depict an overwhelmingly positive experience. CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients who received orthodontic treatment for anterior open bite malocclusion were generally satisfied with the treatment provided, as well as the final esthetic and functional results.

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Adult Anterior Open Bite Study: Treatment success.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior open bite (AOB) continues to be a challenging malocclusion for orthodontists to treat and retain long-term. There is no consensus on which treatment modality is most successful. This study reports on the overall success rate of AOB orthodontic treatment in the adult population across the United States, as well as 4 major treatment modalities and other factors that may influence treatment success. METHODS: Practitioners and their adult patients with AOB were recruited through the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Patient dentofacial and demographic characteristics, practitioner demographic and practice characteristics, and factors relating to orthodontic treatment were reported. Treatment success was determined from posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalometric films and intraoral frontal photographs. Treatment was categorized into 4 main groups: aligners, fixed appliances, temporary anchorage devices (TADs), and orthognathic surgery. Extractions were also evaluated. Bivariate and multivariable models were used to investigate the association between treatment success and treatment modality, pretreatment (T1) dentofacial characteristics, patient and practitioner demographics, and practice characteristics, adjusting for clustering of patients within practice. RESULTS: A total of 254 patients, enrolled by 84 practitioners, contributed to T2 data for this study. There were 29 patients in the aligner group, 152 in fixed appliances, 20 in TADs, and 53 in surgery. A total of 49 patients underwent extractions of teeth other than third molars. Ninety-three percent finished treatment with a positive overbite on the T2 lateral cephalogram, and 84% finished with a positive vertical overlap of all incisors. The small number of aligners and TAD patients limited the ability to compare success rates in these groups. Patients treated with orthognathic surgery had a higher rate of success compared with those treated with fixed appliances only. Treatment success was also associated with academic practice setting, T1 mandibular plane angle ≤30°, no to mild T1 crowding, and treatment duration <30 months. CONCLUSIONS: The overall success of orthodontic treatment in adult patients with AOB who participated in this study was very high. Orthognathic surgery was the only treatment modality that exhibited a statistically higher odds of successful outcomes. Some T1 dentofacial characteristics and treatment factors were associated with the successful closure of AOB.

Anterior openbite malocclusion in adults.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate stability and satisfaction in adult anterior open bite (AOB) patients at least 9 months post-treatment, as well as patient and practitioner factors that may be associated with stability and satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Practitioners and their adult AOB patients were recruited through the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Data on patient and practitioner characteristics, treatment recommendations and factors were previously collected. Treatment stability was determined by assessing post-treatment intraoral photographs. Patient satisfaction was determined from post-treatment questionnaires. Treatment was categorized into aligners, fixed appliances, temporary anchorage devices, and orthognathic surgery. Extractions were also investigated. Retention type was categorized into vacuum-formed, Hawley-style, or bonded retainers, and regimens were classified as full-time or part-time wear. RESULTS: Retention data collected from 112 patients had a mean post-treatment time of 1.21 years. There were no statistically significant differences in stability between treatment groups. Depending on whether a qualitative index or a millimetric measure was employed, stability ranged from 65% to 89%. Extractions and less initial lower incisor proclination were associated with higher stability in patients treated with fixed appliances only. High satisfaction was reported by patients at retention. There were no clear differences in stability or satisfaction among retention types or regimens. CONCLUSIONS: The stability of adult AOB orthodontic treatment was high, regardless of treatment or retainer modality. Satisfaction in adult AOB patients was high, regardless of retention type or regimen.

Dental effects of interceptive orthodontic treatment in a Medicaid population: interim results from a randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: There are disparities in access to orthodontic treatment for children from low-income families. Systematic programs of limited-care interceptive and preventive orthodontics have been proposed as a solution. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare dental outcomes and funding eligibility from a group of Medicaid patients randomized to receive interceptive orthodontics (IO) in the mixed dentition or observation (OBS). METHODS: One hundred seventy Medicaid-eligible children were randomized to receive IO or OBS and followed for 2 years, when complete data were available on 72 and 74 children, respectively. The 2-year changes in the peer assessment rating (PAR) were compared using the Student t test. The proportions of children no longer eligible for Medicaid funding as defined by handicapping labiolingual deviation (HLD) scores less than 25 at the 2-year follow-up were compared with the chi-square test. RESULTS: The IO patients had significantly greater decreases in the PAR scores--50%-compared with the OBS subjects, -6% (P <0.001). Negative and positive overjet and maxillary alignment were the components most affected by IO; they decreased by 11.0, 7.2, and 3.7 PAR points, respectively (P <0.001). Overbite showed little change. At the 2-year follow-up, 80% of the IO patients' malocclusions that qualified initially were no longer deemed medically necessary by the HLD index, compared with 6% in the OBS group (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IO significantly reduces the severity of malocclusions and moves most from the "medically necessary" category to elective but does not produce finished results for most patients. Overjet and alignment were most readily corrected by interceptive treatment. Deep overbites were the least susceptible to IO correction.

Effects of malocclusion and its treatment on the quality of life of adolescents.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between malocclusion and quality of life (QoL) is complex and not well understood. The objective of this study was to determine whether malocclusion and its treatment influence an adolescent's general and oral health-related QoL. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional design with a longitudinal component was used. Clinical and self-reported data were collected from 293 participants aged 11 to 14. The children were recruited from orthodontic and pediatric dental clinics at the University of Washington and a community health clinic in Seattle. The participants were classified into precomprehensive orthodontic (n = 93), postinterceptive orthodontic (n = 44), and nonorthodontic comparison (n = 156) groups. Assessments of dental esthetics and occlusion were evaluated with the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need. Three QoL questionnaires were completed: Youth Quality of Life to assess general QoL, Children's Oral Health-Related Quality of Life to assess oral health QoL, and Treatment Expectations and Experiences to evaluate participants' expectations for changes in specific aspects of their lives. Nonparametric tests were used for all analyses. RESULTS: In general, overall and oral health QoL were high in this population. The instruments were correlated so that when oral health QoL improved, so did general QoL. No differences were found in these measurements between the university and community health clinics. Nor were there differences between the 3 study groups on general QoL and oral health QoL. There was little effect of malocclusion complexity on any QoL measure. Both preorthodontic and postorthodontic participants expected improvements in their health, oral function, appearance, and social well-being after orthodontic treatment; the postinterceptive sample's posttreatment experiences were consistent with their pretreatment expectations in all domains. CONCLUSIONS: Malocclusion and orthodontic treatment do not appear to affect general or oral health QoL to a measurable degree, despite subjective and objective evidence for improved appearance, oral function, health, and social well-being.