Roth versus MBT: does bracket prescription have an effect on the subjective outcome of pre-adjusted edgewise treatment?

Abstract

The aim was to determine if bracket prescription has any effect on the subjective outcome of pre-adjusted edgewise treatment as judged by professionals. This retrospective observational assessment study was undertaken in the Orthodontic Department of the Charles Clifford Dental Hospital, Sheffield, UK. Forty sets of post-treatment study models from patients treated using a pre-adjusted edgewise appliance (20 Roth and 20 MBT) were selected. The models were masked and shown in a random order to nine experienced orthodontic clinicians, who were asked to assess the quality of the outcome, using a pre-piloted questionnaire. The principal outcome measure was the Incisor and Canine Aesthetic Torque and Tip (ICATT) score for each of the 40 post-treatment models carried out by the nine judges. A two-way analysis of variance was undertaken with the dependent variable, total ICATT score and independent variables, Bracket prescription (Roth or MBT) and Assessor. There were statistically significant differences between the subjective assessments of the nine judges (P<0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two bracket prescriptions (P = 0.900). The best agreement between a clinician's judgment of prescription used and the actual prescription was fair (kappa statistic 0.25; CI -0.05 to 0.55). The ability to determine which bracket prescription was used was no better than chance for the majority of clinicians. Bracket prescription had no effect on the subjective aesthetic judgments of post-treatment study models made by nine experienced orthodontists.