Document Type : Original articles


1 Ramadi First Sector for Healthcare, Al-Anbar Health Directorate, Ramadi, Anbar, Iraq.

2 Ramadi First Sector for Healthcare, Al-Anbar Health Directorate, Ramadi, Anbar, Iraq


Background: Functional and camouflage orthodontic treatments in cl II malocclusions are different treatment methods that usually used in orthodontic practice. A comparison of treatment success betweenthose treatment groups shows which treatment method is better to choose.
Objectives: This study aimed to compare functional and camouflage orthodontic treatments in patients with class II malocclusion.
Materials and methods: The sample size was from individuals who they completed treatments between February 2017 and July 2020 at the Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry in Suleyman Demirel University, Turkey. The subjects were from 2 genders and a total number of 146 cases with an average age of 11-22 years. Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index was used to evaluate the success of the treatment using plaster models taken from these cases before and after the treatment.
Results: In our study, orthodontic treatment results were evaluated by the PAR index in three groups as very successful, successful, and unsuccessful according to the scores of success rate (PAR%). The majority of treatments were found to be successful (67.81%), approximately a quarter of cases were very successful (26.71%), and low rate of failure (5.48%).
Conclusion: Although there were positive occlusal changes in functional and camouflage orthodontic treatment groups, patients in the functional orthodontic treatment group showed more improvement in the PAR change rate. Therefore, we recommend starting with treatment at an early age to get more benefit from the growth of patients. 


Main Subjects

[1]      P. Y.-W. Lau and R. W.-K. Wong, “Risks and complications in orthodontic treatment,” Hong Kong Dent. J., 2006.
[2]      J. Seehra, P. S. Fleming, T. Newton, and A. T. DiBiase, “Bullying in orthodontic patients and its relationship to malocclusion, self-esteem and oral health-related quality of life,” J. Orthod., vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 247–256, 2011.
[3]      M. T. Chew and A. Sandham, “An assessment of orthodontic treatment using occlusal indices.,” Singapore Dent. J., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 9–16, 2001.
[4]      L. Taner, F. D. Uzuner, Y. Çaylak, Z. Gençtürk, and E. Kaygısız, “Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index as an Alternative for Orthodontic Treatment Need Decision in Relation to Angle Classification,” Turkish J. Orthod., vol. 32, no. 1, p. 1, 2019.
[5]      W. C. Shaw, S. Richmond, and K. D. O’Brien, “The use of occlusal indices: a European perspective,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 1995.
[6]      O. D. Otuyemi and S. P. Jones, “Methods of assessing and grading malocclusion: a review,” Aust. Orthod. J., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 21–27, 1995.
[7]      S. Richmond et al., “The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity,” Eur. J. Orthod., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 125–139, 1992.
[8]      S. Richmond, W. C. Shaw, C. T. Roberts, and M. Andrews, “The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards,” Eur. J. Orthod., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 180–187, 1992.
[9]      E. A. Turbill, S. Richmond, and J. L. Wright, “A closer look at General Dental Service orthodontics in England and Wales I: factors influencing effectiveness,” Br. Dent. J., vol. 187, no. 4, pp. 211–216, 1999.
[10]    M. F. Sfondrini, P. Zampetti, G. Luscher, P. Gandini, J. L. Gandía-Franco, and A. Scribante, “Orthodontic Treatment and Healthcare Goals: Evaluation of Multibrackets Treatment Results Using PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating),” in Healthcare, 2020, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 473.
[11]    R. Allen Dyken, P. L. Sadowsky, and D. Hurst, “Orthodontic outcomes assessment using the peer assessment rating index,” Angle Orthod., vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 164–169, 2001.
[12]    I. Graf, C. Puppe, J. Schwarze, K. Höfer, H. Christ, and B. Braumann, “Evaluation of effectiveness and stability of aligner treatments using the Peer Assessment Rating Index,” J. Orofac. Orthop. der Kieferorthopädie, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 2021.
[13]    K. Tintodana, S. Verma, S. P. Singh, V. Kumar, R. K. Verma, and N. R. Bhupali, “Assessment of orthodontic treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index among patients with non-syndromic unilateral cleft lip and palate,” J. Orthod. Sci., vol. 9, 2020.
[14]    E. A. Turbill, S. Richmond, and J. L. Wright, “A critical assessment of orthodontic standards in England and Wales (1990–1991) in relation to changes in prior approval,” Br. J. Orthod., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 221–228, 1996.
[15]    M. Spidlen, M. Kotas, G. Machytokova, and K. Gvuzdova, “Effectiveness of orthodontic treatment with removable and fixed appliances,” Ortodoncie, vol. 4, pp. 21–31, 2004.
[16]    K. Birkeland, J. Furevik, O. E. Bøe, and P. J. Wisth, “Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index,” Eur. J. Orthod., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 279–288, 1997.
[17]    K. D. O’Brien, R. Robbins, K. W. L. Vig, P. S. Vig, H. Shnorhokian, and R. Weyant, “The effectiveness of Class II, division 1 treatment,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 329–334, 1995.
[18]    E. A. Al Yami, A. M. Kuijpers-Jagtman, and M. A. van’t Hof, “Occlusal outcome of orthodontic treatment,” Angle Orthod., vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 439–444, 1998.
[19]    V. Pangrazio-Kulbersh, H.-K. Kang, A. Dhawan, R. Al-Qawasmi, and R. R. Pacheco, “Comparison of early treatment outcomes rendered in three different types of malocclusions,” Angle Orthod., vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 253–258, 2018.
[20]    S. Ciger, M. Aksu, and D. Germeç, “Evaluation of posttreatment changes in Class II Division 1 patients after nonextraction orthodontic treatment: cephalometric and model analysis,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 219–223, 2005.
[21]    H. A. Cansunar and T. Uysal, “Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in nonextraction, 2 maxillary premolar extraction, and 4 premolar extraction protocols with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., vol. 145, no. 5, pp. 595–602, 2014.
[22]    G. Janson, D. P. Valarelli, F. P. Valarelli, and M. R. de Freitas, “Treatment times of Class II malocclusion: four premolar and non-extraction protocols,” Eur. J. Orthod., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 182–187, 2012.
[23]    J. K. Holman, M. G. Hans, S. Nelson, and M. P. Powers, “An assessment of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment using the peer assessment rating (PAR) index,” Angle Orthod., vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 527–534, 1998.
[24]    T.-M. Xu, Y. Liu, M.-Z. Yang, and W. Huang, “Comparison of extraction versus nonextraction orthodontic treatment outcomes for borderline Chinese patients,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 672–677, 2006.
[25]    G. Janson, S. E. C. Barros, M. R. de Freitas, J. F. C. Henriques, and A. Pinzan, “Class II treatment efficiency in maxillary premolar extraction and nonextraction protocols,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., vol. 132, no. 4, pp. 490–498, 2007.
[26]    S. M. Schafer, G. Maupome, G. J. Eckert, and W. E. Roberts, “Discrepancy index relative to age, sex, and the probability of completing treatment by one resident in a 2-year graduate orthodontics program,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., vol. 139, no. 1, pp. 70–73, 2011.
[27]    G. Willems, R. Heidbüchel, A. Verdonck, and C. Carels, “Treatment and standard evaluation using the peer assessment rating index,” Clin. Oral Investig., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 57–62, 2001.