Application of ABO-CRE Scores to Assess Orthodontic Treatment Outcome
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/2asyht45Keywords:
Orthodontics; Fixed orthodontic appliances; Treatment outcome; Dental models; Duration of therapy; Retrospective studies.Abstract
Adequate treatment finishing is essential for achieving functional, aesthetic, and stable orthodontic outcomes. The American Board of Orthodontics Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (ABO-CRE) provides an objective method for assessing treatment outcome; however, its use in Latin American orthodontic training programs remains limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate orthodontic treatment outcomes in a postgraduate orthodontic program using the ABO-CRE. A retrospective cross-sectional observational study was conducted in an orthodontics program in Bogotá, Colombia. Fifty-nine completed cases (final study models, lateral cephalograms, and panoramic radiographs) were analyzed. Eight components of the ABO-CRE were evaluated. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, chi-square, and binary logistic regression tests, with a significance level set up at p<0.05. Eighty-eight-point one percent of cases obtained an acceptable score (≤27 points). Mean scores differed significantly among the orthodontics techniques (p=0.0485), self-ligating (19.92±4.59), standard (22.19±4.09) and MBT (23.59±5.56). The most frequent deficiencies were buccolingual inclination (4.95±2.34), alignment (4.29±2.09), and occlusal relationship (4.17±2.85), while the best results were recorded in interproximal (0.73±1.31) and occlusal contacts (0.76±1.18), which showed the highest levels of compliance. Age and the use of the MBT technique were significantly associated with failing scores (p<0.05). The ABO-CRE proved to be an effective tool for standardizing the evaluation of orthodontic treatment outcome. The findings indicate a high proportion of approved treatment outcomes, despite the absence of clinically meaningful differences among orthodontic techniques, while highlighting the need for improved torque control and greater precision in occlusal finishing.
Downloads
References
Castaño-Duque S.P., Hernández-Pantoja A.F., Lemos-Torres M.I. Application of the grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs – ABO/OGS in orthodontics: a topic review. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq. 2024; 36 (1): 85-97. doi:10.17533/udea.rfo.v36n1a8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfo.v36n1a8
Kongboonvijit T., Satrawaha S., Somboonsavatdee A. Factors influencing treatment outcomes assessed by the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System (ABO-OGS). BMC Oral Health. 2023 Dec 1; 23 (1): 1000. doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03735-z PubMed PMID: 38097966. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03735-z
Barbosa D.M., Zapata O., Carvajal A., Franco M., Rodriguez S., Florez A., et al. Outcome of Orthodontic Treatments and its Relationship to Malocclusion Complexity. Int J Odontostomat. 2014; 8 (2): 201-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-381X2014000200008
Carvajal-Flórez Á., Zapata Noreña O., Barbosa Liz D.M., Plazas P., Montoya Sepúlveda F., Murillo A.M. Objective Grading System Scores After the Use of a New Finishing Protocol. A Clinical Study. Revista Nac Odontol. 2020 Mar 15; 16 (1): 1-16. doi:10.16925/2357-4607.2020.01.01 DOI: https://doi.org/10.16925/2357-4607.2020.01.01
Casko J.S., Vaden J.L., Kokich V.G., Damone J., James R.D., Cangialosi T.J., 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70179-9
Zapata O., Barbosa D., Carvajal A., Ardila C.M. Finishing Analysis of Dental Outcome (FADO) as a New Guide in Orthodontic Treatment. Cureus. 2023 Feb 9;e34808. doi:10.7759/cureus.34808 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.34808
Valladares-Neto J., Nojima L.I., Leite H de R., Pithon M.M., Ramos A.L., Aidar LA de A., et al. Orthodontic finishing errors detected in board-approved cases: common types and prediction. Dental Press J Orthod. 2024; 29 (4): e2424102. doi:10.1590/2177-6709.29.4.e2424102.oar PubMed PMID: 39230111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.29.4.e2424102.oar
Papageorgiou S.N., Tilen R., Vandevska-Radunovic V., Eliades T. Occlusal outcome after orthodontic treatment with preadjusted straight-wire and standard edgewise appliances: A retrospective cohort study. J Orofac Orthop. 2021 Sep 1; 82 (5): 321-8. doi:10.1007/s00056-020-00273-z PubMed PMID: 33442754. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-020-00273-z
Gyasudeen K.S., Yousef A.A., Alrubaiaan R., Khader O., Ghoneima A., Prasad S. Quality of orthodontic care in an academic setting in the Middle East. Sci Rep. 2025 Dec 1; 15 (1): 3426. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-87927-3 PubMed PMID: 39870924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-87927-3
Cook D.R., Harris E.F., Vaden J.L. Comparison of university and private-practice orthodontic treatment outcomes with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Jun; 127 (6): 707-12. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.014 PubMed PMID: 15953896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.014
Mislik B., Konstantonis D., Katsadouris A, Eliades T. University clinic and private practice treatment outcomes in Class I extraction and nonextraction patients: A comparative study with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Feb 1; 149 (2): 253-8. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.012 PubMed PMID: 26827982. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.012
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 Sep; 128 (3): 292-8. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.002 PubMed PMID: 16168325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.002
Brown P.N., Kulbersh R., Kaczynski R. Clinical outcomes assessment of consecutively finished patients in a 24-month orthodontic residency: A 5-year perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial. 2011 May; 139 (5): 665-8. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.036 PubMed PMID: 21536210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.036
Papageorgiou S.N., Höchli D., Eliades T. Outcomes of comprehensive fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological overview. Korean J Orthod. 2017 Nov 1; 47 (6): 401-13. doi:10.4041/kjod.2017.47.6.401 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.6.401
Araujo A.V.P., Guedes A.B., Cunha E.F.A., Frigo L., Fernandes A.P.R., Pessoa P.S.R., et al. Precision brackets for upper lateral incisors in Bioprogressive therapy. Microsc Res Tech. 2019 Dec 1; 82 (12): 2049-53. doi:10.1002/jemt.23376 PubMed PMID: 31587442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23376
Maheshwari R.K., Garg A., Virang B., Bhadauria U.S. The effect of tooth morphology and vertical bracket positioning on resultant stress in periodontal ligament - A three dimensional finite element study. Med Pharm Rep. 2019; 92 (3): 294-9. doi:10.15386/mpr-1132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-1132
Mathew A., Kumar H.K., Shetty S. A Comparative Study of the In-Built Torque and Slot Size of MBT Prescription Bracket of Different Manufacturing Companies: A Stereo-Microscopic Study. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2020 Oct; 54 (4): 297-303. doi:10.1177/0301574220937458 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0301574220937458
Hu M., Cao Y., Wu X., Jiang Q., Zhu F. Effect of fence tray matching care on excess adhesive and bracket placement accuracy for orthodontic bonding: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Dec 1; 24 (1): 555. doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04348-w PubMed PMID: 38735948. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04348-w
Song G.Y., Baumrind S., Zhao Z.H., Ding Y., Bai Y.X., Wang L., et al. Validation of the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System for assessing the treatment outcomes of Chinese patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144 (3): 391-7. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.018 PubMed PMID: 23992811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.018
Dragomirescu A.O., Bencze M.A., Vasilache A., Teodorescu E., Albu C.C., Popoviciu N.O., et al. Reducing Friction in Orthodontic Brackets: A Matter of Material or Type of Ligation Selection? In-Vitro Comparative Study. Materials. 2022 Apr 1; 15 (7): 2640. doi:10.3390/ma15072640 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15072640
Sezici Y.L., Önçağ M.G. Conventional and self-ligating lingual orthodontic treatment outcomes in Class I nonextraction patients: A comparative study with the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2023 Apr 1; 163 (4): e106-14. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.10.021 PubMed PMID: 36737396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.10.021
Arora M.A., Shah A., Somani D. Self-Ligating Versus Conventional Brackets: A Narrative Review. Cureus. 2025 Mar; 17 (3): e81499. doi:10.7759/cureus.81499 PubMed PMID: 40308420.
Zhang Y., Yan J., Zhang Y., Liu H., Han B., Li W. Age-related alveolar bone maladaptation in adult orthodontics: finding new ways out. Int J Oral Sci. 2024 Aug 1;16 (1): 52. doi:10.1038/s41368-024-00319-7 PubMed PMID: 39085217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41368-024-00319-7
Wang J., Huang Y., Chen F., Li W. The age-related effects on orthodontic tooth movement and the surrounding periodontal environment. Front Physiol. 2024 Sep; 6 (15): 1460168. doi:10.3389/fphys.2024.1460168 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2024.1460168
Kiyamehr Z., Razeghinejad M.H., Rahbar M., Oskouei S.G., Vafaei A. Factors Affecting the Duration of Fixed Orthodontic Treatment in Patients Treated in a University Department between 2016 and 2020. Maedica (Bucur). 2022 Jun; 17 (2): 380-6. doi:10.26574/maedica.2022.17.2.380 PubMed PMID: 36032626.
Sifakakis I., Pandis N., Makou M., Eliades T., Katsaros C., Bourauel C. Torque expression of 0.018 and 0.022 inch conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2013 Oct; 35 (5): 610-4. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjs041 PubMed PMID: 22828075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjs041
Arreghini A., Lombardo L., Mollica F., Siciliani G. Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross section. Prog Orthod. 2014 Sep 25; 15 (1): 1-18. doi:10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x PubMed PMID: 25329505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x
Kolge N.E., Patni V.J., Karandikar G., V.K.R., Daga P., Madhaswar A.B. Comparative Evaluation of Dimensional Accuracy, Surface Characteristics, and Load Deflection Attributes of 0.019" × 0.025" Stainless Steel Wires Sourced from Six Different Commercial Houses: An In Vitro Study. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2020 Oct; 54 (4): 311-20. doi:10.1177/0301574220939382 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0301574220939382
Allan D., Woods M.G. Arch-dimensional changes in non-extraction cases with finishing wires of a particular material, size and arch form. Aust Orthod J. 2015; 31 (1): 26-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-137
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Julio César Castro-Velasco, María Teresa Aycardi-Fonseca, Judith Patricia Barrera-Chaparro, Edgar Antonio Ibañez-Pinilla, Jorge Ernesto Morales-Pardo, Andrés Felipe Ramírez-Rueda.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ODOVTOS - Int. J. Dent. Sc. endorses CC BY-NC-SA
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:
BY: credit must be given to the creator.
NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.
