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.

Agreement of treatment recommendations based on digital vs plaster dental models.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in orthodontists' treatment plans based on digital models compared with plaster models. Additionally, we assessed whether digital or plaster models influence the reliability of orthodontists' treatment plans, as well as the amount of time required to arrive at the plan. METHODS: Sixteen orthodontists planned treatment for 20 patients at 2 time points using either the same or different model formats (digital or plaster). The treatment plan decisions and time spent making the plans were recorded. The permutation test and a random effects model were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The treatment plans arrived at with digital and plaster models were similar. With respect to extractions, the mean difference between digital and plaster formats was 11.9% (95% CI, 7.5%-16.3%). For surgery, the mean difference was 9.4% (95% CI, 5.0%-13.8%). There was no significant difference in the agreement rate between those who viewed models in different formats compared with those who viewed models twice in the same format (P >0.05). The time spent to plan treatment with plaster models was not significantly different from the time spent with digital models (P = 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, digital models can be substituted for plaster models with no significant differences in the final plans, the reliability of the plans, and the time required to create the plan.

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network Adult Anterior Open Bite Study: Treatment recommendations and their association with patient and practitioner characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: This aim of this paper is to describe and identify the practitioner and patient characteristics that are associated with treatment recommendations for adult anterior open bite patients across the United States. METHODS: Practitioners and patients were recruited within the framework of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Practitioners were asked about their demographic characteristics and their treatment recommendations for these patients. The practitioners also reported on their patients' dentofacial characteristics and provided initial cephalometric scans and intraoral photographs. Patients were asked about their demographic characteristics, previous orthodontic treatment, and goals for treatment. Four main treatment groups were evaluated: aligners, fixed appliances, temporary anchorage devices (TADs), and orthognathic surgery. Extractions were also investigated. Predictive multivariable models were created comparing various categories of treatment as well as extraction/nonextraction decisions. RESULTS: Ninety-one practitioners (mostly orthodontists) and 347 patients were recruited from October 2015 to December 2016. Increased aligner recommendations were associated with white and Asian patients, the presence of tongue habits, and female practitioners. TADs were recommended more often in academic settings. Recommendations for orthognathic surgery were associated with demographic factors, such as availability of insurance coverage and practitioner race/ethnicity, and dentofacial characteristics, such as anteroposterior discrepancies, more severe open bites, and steeper mandibular plane angles. Extraction recommendations were largely associated with severe crowding and incisor proclination. CONCLUSIONS: Both doctor and patient demographic factors, as well as dentofacial characteristics, were significantly associated with treatment recommendations for adult anterior open bite patients.

Recommendations for clear aligner therapy using digital or plaster study casts.

BACKGROUND: Clear aligner therapy has evolved considerably since its introduction 20 years ago. Clinicians have become more experienced with aligner therapy, but little is known about the types of malocclusions that clinicians currently treat with aligners. Similarly, it is not known if viewing digital vs plaster models has any impact on the treatment planning process for aligners. The aim of this study was to assess which types of malocclusions are recommended for treatment with clear aligners, and also to determine if recommendations for aligner treatment differed when using digital versus plaster models. METHODS: Sixteen orthodontists treatment planned 20 cases at two time points with either the same or different model formats (digital versus plaster). As part of the treatment planning process, they were asked whether each patient was a good candidate for Invisalign® treatment, and if not, why. Generalized estimating equations regression (GEE), the permutation test, and a logistic regression model with GEE were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the Invisalign® choices in the digital model group and those in the plaster model group at T1 (p = 0.59). There was no significant difference between the agreement rate of the different formats group and that of the same format group (p = 0.97). Cases with extractions had less Invisalign® recommendations (15%) compared to cases with no extractions (55%) (p = 0.0015). Cases with surgery had less Invisalign® recommendations (29%) compared to cases with no surgery (57%) (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, viewing orthodontic records with digital versus plaster models did not influence decisions about Invisalign® recommendations. Additionally, the orthodontists in this study tended to not recommend Invisalign® for extraction cases, surgical cases, or difficult cases.

The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network adult anterior open bite study: A description of the practitioners and patients.

OBJECTIVES:: To describe the demographic and practice characteristics of the clinicians enrolled in a large, prospective cohort study examining recommendations and treatment for adult anterior open bite (AOB) and the relationship between these characteristics and practitioners' self-reported treatment preferences. The characteristics of the AOB patients recruited were also described. MATERIALS AND METHODS:: Practitioners were recruited from the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Participants in the study consisted of practitioners and their adult AOB patients in active treatment. Upon enrollment, practitioners completed questionnaires enquiring about demographics, treatment preferences for adult AOB patients, and treatment recommendations for each patient. Patients completed questionnaires on demographics and factors related to treatment. RESULTS:: Ninety-one practitioners and 347 patients were recruited. Demographic characteristics of recruited orthodontists were similar to those of American Association of Orthodontists members. The great majority of practitioners reported using fixed appliances and elastics frequently for adult AOB patients. Only a third of practitioners reported using aligners frequently for adult AOB patients, and 10% to 13% frequently recommended temporary anchorage devices (TADs) or orthognathic surgery. Seventy-four percent of the patients were female, and the mean age was 31.4 years. The mean pretreatment overbite was -2.4 mm, and the mean mandibular plane angle was 38.8°. Almost 40% of patients had undergone orthodontic treatment previously. CONCLUSIONS:: This article presents the demographic data for 91 doctors and 347 adult AOB patients, as well as the practitioners' self-reported treatment preferences.