title: Outcome assessment of lingual and labial appliances compared with cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and objective grading system in Angle Class II extraction cases.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To validate our hypothesis that there would be significant differences in treatment outcomes, including cephalometric values, degree of root resorption, occlusal indices, and functional aspect, between cases treated with labial and lingual appliances.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-four consecutively treated Class II cases with extractions and lingual appliance were compared with 25 matched cases treated with extraction and labial appliance. Orthodontic treatment outcomes were evaluated by cephalometric analysis, peer assessment rating, and an objective grading system (OGS). Additionally, functional analysis was also performed in both groups after orthodontic treatment. Statistical comparison was performed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test within the groups, and the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare between the labial and lingual groups.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The only significant difference between the groups was that the interincisal angle was larger in the lingual group than in the labial group. OGS evaluation showed that control over root angulation was significantly worse in the lingual group than in the labial group. There was no significant difference between groups in the amount of root resorption or in functional evaluation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Generally, lingual appliances offer comparable treatment results to those obtained with labial appliances. However, care should be taken with lingual appliances because they are more prone to produce uprighted incisors and root angulation.
authors.affiliation: a  Associate Professor, Division of Orthodontics, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, Ohio; and Adjunct Instructor, Division of Orthodontics, Tohoku University Graduate School of Dentistry, Sendai, Japan.
authors.forename: Toru
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Deguchi
authors.forename: Fumie
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Terao
authors.forename: Tomo
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Aonuma
authors.forename: Tomoki
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Kataoka
authors.forename: Yasuyo
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Sugawara
authors.forename: Takashi
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Yamashiro
authors.forename: Teruko
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Takano-Yamamoto
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000497:Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D001641:Bicuspid / Q000601:surgery; D016022:Case-Control Studies; D002508:Cephalometry / Q000379:methods*; D003300:Copper / Q000737:chemistry; D003722:Dental Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007180:Incisor / Q000473:pathology; D008297:Male; D008312:Malocclusion, Angle Class II / Q000628:therapy*; D009532:Nickel / Q000737:chemistry; D016382:Orthodontic Appliance Design; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D009969:Orthodontic Wires; D010380:Peer Review; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012391:Root Resorption / Q000145:classification / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D013193:Stainless Steel / Q000737:chemistry; D014025:Titanium / Q000737:chemistry; D014081:Tooth Extraction / Q000379:methods*; D014087:Tooth Movement Techniques / Q000295:instrumentation; D014092:Tooth Root / Q000473:pathology; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D000497:Alloys; C415948:Copper NiTi; D003722:Dental Alloys; C525450:titanium molybdenum alloy; C040654:titanium nickelide; D013193:Stainless Steel; D003300:Copper; D009532:Nickel; D014025:Titanium
keywords: Clinical outcome; Lingual appliance; Objective grading system; Peer assessment rating