Focusing public insurance programs on interceptive orthodontics (IO) may increase access for low-income children. This report presents outcomes from a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing IO with comprehensive orthodontics (CO) in Medicaid patients. One hundred seventy pre-adolescents with Medicaid-eligible malocclusions were randomized to IO (n = 86) followed by observation (OBS) or OBS followed by CO (n = 84). One hundred thirty-four completed the trial. Models at pre-treatment (baseline) and following ≤ 2 years of intervention and 2 years of OBS (48 mos) were scored by calibrated examiners using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) and Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). Overall outcomes and clinically meaningful categorical ICON data on need/acceptability, complexity, and improvement were compared. At baseline, groups were balanced by age, gender, ethnicity, and PAR/ICON scores. Most were minorities. Most (77%) were rated as difficult-to-very difficult. Scores improved significantly for both groups, but CO more than IO (PAR, 18.6 [95%CI 15.1, 22.1] vs.10.1 [95%CI 6.7, 13.4]; ICON, 44.8 [95% CI 39.7, 49.9] vs. 35.2 [95%CI 29.7, 40.6], respectively). On average, IO is effective at reducing malocclusions in Medicaid patients, but less than CO. (ClinicalTrials.gov number CT00067379).
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00067379.