PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9800023

Task Group for Orthodontics Report.

K W Lumsden·D V Brown·R J Edler·R H Kirschen·T S Macadam·C D Stephens
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The UK Specialist Review Group of the General Dental Council's Education Committee has been charged with taking forward the recommendations in the Chief Dental Officer's report 'UK Specialist Dental Training'. The Specialist Review Group has, in turn, established a number of specialty task groups. This report is from the Task Group for Orthodontics. It was submitted in May 1996.

Explore related subjects

CertificationEducation, Dental, ContinuingEducation, Dental, GraduateEducational MeasurementEuropeHumansOrthodonticsProfessional PracticeRegistriesSpecialties, DentalStudents, DentalTime FactorsUnited KingdomWorkforceJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K W Lumsden, D V Brown, R J Edler, R H Kirschen, T S Macadam, C D Stephens. 1998. Task Group for Orthodontics Report.. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho%2F25.3.222

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Assessing the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system: digital vs plaster dental casts.

INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to determine whether the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system (ABO OGS) can be assessed accurately from digital dental casts and whether there are statistical differences between digital and plaster dental casts in scoring the ABO OGS. METHODS: Thirty posttreatment plaster dental casts were selected and scanned by OrthoCAD (Cadent, Carlstadt, NJ) to produce 30 corresponding digital dental casts. The plaster and digital casts were compared by using the criteria of the ABO OGS. Because the data were ordinal, a nonparametic statistical analysis was used. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon test for paired samples showed significant differences between the plaster and digital casts for occlusal contacts, occlusal relationships, and total scores (P <.05). No significant differences were found for alignment, marginal ridges, overjet, and interproximal contacts. Buccolingual inclination was not included in this study because of inability to perform proper measurements with the OrthoCAD program. Mean differences of points deducted ranged from .03 point for marginal ridges to 5.07 points for the total score. The variable with the most points deducted related to occlusal relationships, and the fewest points were deducted for interproximal contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, the current OrthoCAD program (version 2.2) was not adequate for scoring all parameters as required by the ABO OGS.

Certification↗