Aplicación del índice CRE en la finalización de los tratamientos de ortodoncia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/2asyht45Palabras clave:
Ortodoncia; Aparatos ortodóncicos fijos; Resultado del tratamiento; Modelos dentales; Duración de la terapia; Estudios retrospectivos.Resumen
La fase de finalización en ortodoncia es determinante para lograr una oclusión funcional, estética y estable. La American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) desarrolló el índice Cast-Radiograph Evaluation (CRE) como herramienta objetiva para evaluar la calidad de finalización de los tratamientos. Sin embargo, su aplicación en programas académicos latinoamericanos ha sido limitada. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar los resultados del tratamiento ortodóncico aplicando la ABO-CRE. Estudio observacional transversal retrospectivo. Se analizaron 59 casos finalizados (modelos de estudio finales, radiografías laterales de cráneo y radiografías panorámicas), en los cuales se evaluaron ocho componentes de la ABO-CRE. Los datos se analizaron mediante ANOVA, chi-cuadrado y regresión logística binaria, con un nivel de significancia de p<0,05. El 88,1 % de los casos obtuvo una puntuación aceptable (≤ 27 puntos). Las puntuaciones medias difirieron significativamente entre las técnicas ortodónticas (p=0,0485): autoligado (19,92±4,59), estándar (22,19±4,09) y MBT (23,59±5,56). Las deficiencias más frecuentes fueron la inclinación vestibulolingual (4,95±2,34), el alineamiento (4,29±2,09) y la relación oclusal (4,17±2,85), mientras que, los mejores resultados se registraron en los contactos interproximales (0,73±1,31) y oclusales (0,76±1,18), que mostraron los mayores niveles de cumplimiento. La edad y el uso de la técnica MBT se asociaron significativamente con puntuaciones no aprobatorias (p<0,05). La ABO-CRE demostró ser una herramienta eficaz para estandarizar la evaluación de los resultados del tratamiento ortodóncico. Los hallazgos indican una alta proporción de resultados de tratamiento aprobados y resaltan la necesidad de mejorar el control del torque y de lograr mayor precisión en la finalización oclusal.
Descargas
Referencias
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
Descargas
Publicado
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 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.
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
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.
