-
ABO sample case 1; Case 3
I have a question regarding ABO sample cases 1; case 3
The question asked what dental changes around due to treatment:
In my response, the lower incisors extruded more than expected; therefore due to treatment. However this was not one of the answers.
Also for the L6s my response would be:
L6s extruded as expected due to growth & held in the AP due to tx. For 3 years of treatment, we would expect the L6s to move about 1.5 mm. It looks like it barely moved in the AP.
If they asked about the skeletal changes that occurred. My answer would be:
1. Pogonion moved inferiorly as expected with growth and anteriorly due to growth
2. for the maxilla, not as much vertical changed as we expected; therefore possible due to tx? And the A point; moved forward?
Would love your thoughts on this assessment
Thanks again!
-
2 Replies
-
Hello,
I might be looking at a different case, but I think it relates, so I thought I would post it here. For the ABO posted Sample Cases Part 1, Case #3 (https://www.americanboardortho.com/media/0bhjmyib/202309_samplecases1withanswers-sampcases1.pdf) the question is, “what dental changes occurred?”
To me, it looks like the lower incisors erupted more than expected with growth (0.9×3=2.7mm). This looks like more than 2.7mm to me, but lower incisor extrusion is not listed as an answer. Am I looking at this wrong?
I also thought mandibular molars extruded slightly. 0.5×3=1.5mm. This looks like more than 1.5mm.
Any help is appreciated, thanks!
-
Well… I typed out a reply and it got erased so trying it again here.
First of all we are looking at the ABO Sample Cases (Part 1) Case #3 posted on the ABO website (updated 9/2023)
1) For the man incisors they might have extruded a little bit more than 2.7mm but notice the replies says “Must include” the following answers. I interpret this to mean that even the ABO thinks the difference is enough for this case that you could say treatment effect or growth effect so they are not asking everyone to estimate to the tenth of a millimeter.
2) The lower molars are definitely held in the AP and they state that as a response for treatment effect.
Alice, Good idea tacking skeletal changes on here as well.
1) For Pogonion I would agree as long as you identify it’s the growth happening at the condyle. Don’t make them think that you think Pogonion is doing the growth.
2) For the maxilla, I agree it looks held in the vertical. But probably normal growth at ANS. A point is trick because the apex position of the max incisors can cause remodeling of A point. A point is not on the Buschang growth illustration so I wouldn’t mention it here.
The forum ‘Synapse Orthodontics: General’ is closed to new discussions and replies.