Methods: In preliminary phase of this study, holding several academic panel discussion sessions were held to recognize possible limitations of the mentioned methods. Also, the new model was discussed based on clinician's commitments according to a prioritized problem list (involving patient demands, accessibility of treatment goals, cost-benefit ratio etc.) and it was tried to develop a new grading system for outcome assessment of orthodontic treatments in this regard. Moreover, 5 faculty member orthodontists were asked to rank 10 selected cases (including common malocclysion and treatment plans) in an ordered list using ABO OGS and also by their own experience in a separate list. A ranking was made by the new model as well. The new model was then compared with previous ones in assessing 10 selected cases as a preliminary step in model development.
Results: In this preliminary project, several controversies among skilled orthodontists were recognized on use of available methods such as ABO OGS for outcome assessment. Also a better compatibility between the proposed model and skilled orthodontists' ranking in the selected cases was found.
Conclusions: A commitment oriented grading system may better be recognized for assessing the quality of treatment provided by orthodontists, especially in academic settings. Further investigations including a larger group of experts and cases are needed for developing a mature model.