Effectiveness of lingual versus labial fixed appliances in adults according to the Peer Assessment Rating index

• Published in: American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics Vol. 155; no. 6; pp. 819 - 825
• Main Authors: Ata-Ali, Fadi, Plasencia, Eliseo, Lanuza-Garcia, Alicia, Ferrer-Molina, Marcela, Melo, María, Ata-Ali, Javier
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.06.2019
• Subjects: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Peer Review, Health Care; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0889-5406; 1097-6752
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.07.018

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of lingual treatment and labial fixed appliances in the treatment of adult orthodontic patients. We conducted a retrospective study of 72 patients. The Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was measured at the start (T0) and end (T1) of treatment. Significant differences between treatment means were determined by means of analysis of variancewith the Bonferroni correction or with the use of Fisher exact test. The lingual group had a mean pretreatment age of 28.6 ± 6.7 years, and the labial group had a pretreatment age of 26.6 ± 9.5 years. This difference was statistically not significant. The mean pre- and posttreatment PAR scores in the labial group were 22.9 ± 6.2 and 2.1 ± 2.3, respectively, and the mean pre- and posttreatment PAR scores in the lingual group were 26.5 ± 8.3 and 2.3 ± 2.5. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups. Lingual and labial appliances produced similar reductions in PAR scores. There was no difference in the posttreatment PAR scores between the lingual and labial treatment groups. Further studies involving larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm the results obtained. •Mean T0 and T1 PAR scores in the labial group were 22.9 ± 6.2 and 2.1 ± 2.3.•Mean T0 and T1 PAR scores in the lingual group were 26.5 ± 8.3 and 2.3 ± 2.5.•Lingual and labial appliances produced similar reductions in PAR score.•T1 PAR scores in lingual and labial groups were not significantly different.