-
CMF
From the ABO website the powerpoint they have for CMF Sample case (I attached it)
– why is there a deficiency in ceph tracing and comp tracing? (slide 24)
-slide 25, they said premolar would have provided better finalization, what does that mean? premolar position? extraction?
– slide 26, no change planned for mandibular arch form- thats the goal, no? but they got marked.
– I attached a screenshot of the ceph but they wrote poor tracing, I don’t see it!
– Lastly, I’ve been looking this up without a clear answer. I attached the table but for widths like 6-6 what is the ideal? Or is it just that you want to keep it the same as it started unless expanding?
THANK YOU
-
3 Replies
-
Joti, I’m going to do a host of replies here.
The Ceph Tracing is the most important of the issues you bring up and Everyone should take a moment and look at this example provided!
Pull up the sample Poor Ceph tracing in Slide 37 and then pull up the tracing video on the ABO website. Watch carefully and then mark the differences and errors. This is the highest value out of these questions!
“– why is there a deficiency in ceph tracing and comp tracing? (slide 24)” – they don’t show all the records so we don’t know why. These hails back to when ALL examinees brought cases to the board for review. They would critique cases your tracings and superimpositions. I’ve even heard of colleagues who were critiqued for their tracings being “too good” meaning they think they fudged the tracing to make the superimposition look better.
-
“– Lastly, I’ve been looking this up without a clear answer. I attached the table but for widths like 6-6 what is the ideal? Or is it just that you want to keep it the same as it started unless expanding?”
L3-L3 is definitely a stability issues. And correct the 6s is all about your transverse goals and crossbites. The ABO has not published a standard measurement or range of U6-U6 or L3-L3: keep it patient specific.
-
First the “Sample Deficiencies” from slide 24 and following do not appear to me to relate back to the case presented in the first part of the presentation.
“-slide 25, they said premolar would have provided better finalization, what does that mean? premolar position? extraction?”
I do not know about this statement. I’d have to see the case they are talking about. I think it just highlights that in marking up a case we keep brief statements and look at the details.
“– slide 26, no change planned for mandibular arch form- thats the goal, no? but they got marked.”
Yes – they got marked two deficiencies it appears. One because they wasn’t an appropriate goal for that case (or they maybe identified the wrong form – say it was tapered or square, not ovoid) and then they didn’t treat or achieve the finish needed. Again we’d have to see the case to be sure. These are just sample notes is how I read this presentation.
The forum ‘Synapse Orthodontics: Module 6’ is closed to new discussions and replies.