Iowa Section of AADR - The University of Iowa College of Dentistry

20. Growth Relationships between the Mandible and Standing Height by Occlusion
D.G. Meier 1 , R.N. Staley 1 , C.M. Kummet 1
1 University of Iowa
Objectives: To measure longitudinal growth of the mandible and standing height from 6-13 years in Class I normal
occlusions (CINO) and Class II malocclusions (CIIM), and correlate the variables to describe the strength of the
associations in the occlusion groups.
Methods: Cephalograms of 30 male and 28 female participants in the Iowa Growth Study were used [IRB approval].
Dial calipers were used to measure mandibular length between articulare-pogonion (Ar-Pg). Standing height
measurements were obtained from the Iowa Growth Study. Spearman correlations were used to correlate growth of
standing height and articulare-pogonion in subjects with CINO (15 males and 15 females) and CIIM (15 males and
Results:
two occlusion groups occurred at age 9 in females (r=0.7235 [CINO]; r= -0.0070 [CIIM], p=0.0448). Growth curves
for mandibular length and for standing height were similar but key differences occurred in growth acceleration in
both genders in both occlusion groups.
Conclusions: Correlations between growth in standing height and length of mandible in CINO and CIIM subjects
were low to moderate positive. The correlations have minimal clinical application.
Supported by: University of Iowa, College of Dentistry, Dows Research Award
21. Changes in Fourth-Year Dental Students’ Presentation of Treatment Plans
M. Popowski1 , M.R. McQuistan 1 , C.L. Straub-Morarend 1 , F. Qian1 1 University of Iowa
Objective: To assess whether dental students change their methods of presenting treatment plans to patients as
they progress through the fourth year.
Methods: A survey was developed and administered to all University of Iowa College of Dentistry fourth-year dental
students at two points in time (N=77; July and October 2010). The survey assessed the duration and content of
students’ treatment plan presentations. Univariate analyses were performed. The nonparametric Wilcoxon signed
the two time points. IRB approval was obtained prior to beginning the study.
Results: 46 students completed the survey at two points in time for a matched response rate of 59.7%. On average,
students spent 11-20 minutes presenting a treatment plan to a new patient, with 37% spending more time as
the semester progressed. Students spent 1-10 minutes reviewing an accepted treatment plan with a returning
patient, with 24% spending more time as the semester progressed. 47% of students frequently presented multiple
treatment plans to a patient, but this decreased over time. During the initial presentation of the treatment plan,
students were most likely to discuss cost of treatment (98%), number of visits to complete treatment (91%),
etiology of treatment needs (80%), and maintenance (78%). Students were least likely to discuss evidence relevant
to the planned treatment (13%), case prognosis (67%), and material selection (67%). With the exception of cost,
the number of students who discussed the aforementioned aspects of the treatment decreased over time.
Conclusion: As the semester progressed, students changed the amount of time they spent presenting treatment
plans to patients and the content they presented to their patients.
Supported by: University of Iowa, College of Dentistry, Iowa Dental Research Grant
21 20