Since WSLO was founded in 2004 we had had in mind, and discussed, the creation of a way to certify and control a high standard of lingual treatment throughout the world. Now the time has come to found WBLO (World Board of Lingual Orthodontists). Respecting the initial aim of the WSLO which means in agreement and involving all lingual orthodontic societies, the WSLO promotes the founding of the World Board of Lingual Orthodontists (WBLO), in order to recognize the efforts made by all lingual orthodontists in realizing the highest standards of treatment quality.
The WBLO will certify lingual orthodontists with a worldwide standard of clinical excellence.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCUMENTATION
FOR THE WORLD BOARD OF LINGUAL ORTHODONTISTS' EXAMINATION
Before starting your preparations for the WBLO examination, please consider the specifications laid down by the Board Examination Committee of the WBLO.
The language for both the oral and written examination is English. It is not now possible to take the oral part examination in any other language.
For all case presentations if the lateral skull radiographs were obtained using different radiographic machine and thus are of different magnification, the magnification must be calculated and the appropriate scale for each lateral skull radiograph must be given. If the lateral skull radiographs have been taken using the same machine, the tracing should be made in such a way that the examiners can superimpose the radiographs. If the lateral skull radiographs are not comparable and the reasons for it are not clearly explained, then the cases may be marked as incomplete.
For all cases model analysis is required, including the exact amount of the crowding or spacing. The precise amount must be shown in millimetres (for example – 3.8 mm). Such words as 'some crowding' or 'heavy crowding' or 'different open spaces' are unacceptable and will not be accepted. If the model shows a mixed dentition you have to make a prognosis of the space. A well-known analysis, such as those described by Tanaka or Moyers, which are easy to understand, should be used. Information on the analysis used and how the measurements were undertaken should be provided. If the measurements cannot be easily understood by the examiners or are not well described and explained, the cases may be marked as 'incomplete'. Information can be added to the synopsis explaining the method, if it is the one that you generally use for all cases.
All cases must respect Angle's classification especially molars relationship.
4-1. All Class II cases must show the first molars as a full unit Class II: i.e. the upper bucco- mesial cusp of the first molar has to be perpendicular with the interproximal contact of the lower first molar with the lower second premolar. If the Class II relationship is in a cusp-to-cusp or the case will not be accepted as Class II. However, it will be accepted if one side shows a full Class II. For case no. 3 'Class II division 2' the canines have to show a Class II relationship, i.e. the cusp of the lower canine has to be perpendicular to the interproximal space of the upper first premolar and the upper canine, or the cusp of the upper canine has to be perpendicular or even more mesial to the most mesial point of the lower canine. This relationship must be present on both sides.
4-2 Class III case must show the first molars as an Angle's Class III relationship.
If you present a replacement case, the reason for doing so must be given. It is not acceptable to include information such as 'It is spectacular' or 'It is a very special case' is not sufficient and will not be accepted. If the examiners cannot follow your reasoning for the replacement, your documentation will be considered as incomplete
The examiners are looking for cases with 'excellent' treatment results – not necessarily the most spectacular case you have ever see in your life, but which has not been possible to treat to a perfect result. The WBLO is a board of excellence!