Printer Friendly

INDEX OF COMPLEXITY, OUTCOME AND NEED (ICON) FOR DETERMINING TREATMENT NEED IN PAKISTANI ORTHODONTIC PRACTICE.

Byline: MUHAMMAD AZEEM, MUHAMMAD BURHAN HAYAT, MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN and WAHEED UL HAMID

Abstract

Assessment of orthodontic treatment need is a complicated issue. Taking decision of whether or not one should undergo orthodontic treatment, both the desire of the patient (and/ or parents) and the opinion of the orthodontist must be taken into account. The aim of present cross sectional study was to apply Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON) in Pakistani population. Dental casts of 50 patients were used and analyzed by applying ICON to find out the orthodontic treatment need and initial stage complexity grades. The data was analyzed in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software package (SPSS) 21. Results showed that 80% of the patients needed some sort of orthodontic therapy. More than 65% of the cases were classified as being difficult and very difficult to treat. It was concluded that a high number of cases were in need of the orthodontic therapy and majority of the patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were in difficult grades.

Key Words: Index of Complexity Outcome and Need; Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need.

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontic index can be described as- A rating or scoring system which assigns a mathematical numeric grade to a patient's occlusion.1 Several orthodontic indexes have been proposed to find out orthodontic treatment need and to score complexity of patient's malocclusion.2-7 The index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN), PAR and the index of complexity, outcome, and need (ICON) are perhaps the most commonly used orthodontic indexes.8-10

However there are certain shortcomings of PAR index and the IOTN,11-13 namely insignificant correlation between indices, contradictory findings, valid in UK only, undue lenient for end treatment spaces, no scoring for incisor inclination and rotations, and not grade difficulty of treatment.

To address the shortcomings of IOTN and the PAR index, the ICON10 was developed by merging views of 97 orthodontists from different European countries and the USA. 15,16 ICON has been shown to be a reliable and valid index for assessing orthodontic treatment need. 17,18 The index is intended for use in the late mixed dentition and permanent dentition. Further, the index may be applied clinically to cases and to plaster models without any modification. The ICON is unique in incorporating aesthetic score as integral part of the evaluation of treatment need.19 ICON complexity grades (Score range) are as follows10:

Easy: 77

This cross sectional study was designed to apply Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON) in Pakistani population to assess treatment need and complexity grades, among the patients visiting department of Orthodontics, de,Montmorency College of dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan.

METHODOLOGY

This cross sectional study was conducted at the Department of Orthodontics, de,Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore in which orthodontic records of 50 untreated patients, between the chronological ages of 12 and 16 years, irrespective of gender were included. Duration of this study was from November 2016 to June 2017.

Inclusion Criteria: All teeth present except wisdoms, orthodontic patients with chronological ages of 12 to 16 years, and good quality pre-treatment models.

Exclusion Criteria: Previous orthodontic / Orthognathic treatment, craniofacial syndromes and patients with TMJ problems.

Dental casts of 50 patients were used and analyzed by applying ICON to find out the orthodontic treatment need and initial stage complexity grades.10

The data were analyzed in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software package (SPSS) 21. The mean age and gender distribution among the selected sample was calculated. For Intraexaminer reliability, 10 dental casts were randomly selected from the main sample and were reassessed 10 days after the initial assessment, and found out to be reliable.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 14.18 years. The sex distribution was 20 males and 30 females. The mean age of male patients was 14.11 years and mean age of female patients was 14.13 years. (Table 1)

Forty study casts (80%) were found to be in need of orthodontic treatment, while 10 (20%) were found to be having no need of orthodontic treatment. It was found that, out of 30 females 23 needed orthodontic treatment and 7 were found, having no need of treatment. 17 males were found to be in need of orthodontic treatment and 3 were found, having no need of treatment. (Table 2)

TABLE 1: AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION (N=50)

Parameter###Results

Mean Age###14.18 Years

Males###20 (40 %)

Females###30 (60 %)

TABLE 2: RESULTS OF TREATMENT NEED (N=50)

###Treatment Need###Total

###Yes###No

Gender###Male###17###3###20

###Female###23###7###30

Total###40###10###50

TABLE 3: RESULTS OF TREATMENT COMPLEXITY GRADES (N=50)

Complexity Grade10###% of patients

Easy 77###35

As far as the orthodontic pre-treatment complexity grade is concerned, maximum number of cases 35% were classified as having very difficult orthodontic treatment (ICON score > 77). 5% cases in easy treatment grade (ICON score < 29), 5% cases in mild treatment grade (ICON scores from 29 to 50), 25% in moderate treatment grade (ICON scores from 51 to 63), and 30 % in difficult treatment grade (ICON scores from 64 to 77). (Table 3)

DISCUSSION

Advantages of grading complexity of occlusion are: (I) Identification of the most proper clinical setting in which orthodontic patient receives therapy (II) Information to the patient regarding orthodontic therapy success chances, and (III) grade cases according to difficulty.10

The ICON consists of five components: The Aesthetic Component which is similar to the Aesthetic Component of the IOTN, upper and lower crowding and or spacing, the presence or absence of X bite, grading of overbite, and the saggital fitness of the posterior teeth.10

Results of present study showed that 80% were in need of orthodontic treatment, while 20% were found to be having no need of orthodontic treatment. It was found that, out of 30 females 23 needed orthodontic treatment and 17 males were found to be in need of orthodontic treatment. As far as the orthodontic pre-treatment complexity grade is concerned, maximum number of cases i.e. 65% were classified as having difficult and very difficult orthodontic treatment grades.

Results of present are study higher than other studies in Jordan (28%), Kuwait (28%), United Kingdom (32%), New Zealand (31.3%), Malaysian (47.9%) and Chinese (52%) populations. Contrary to our findings, some African studies, reported much lower estimates for Nigerian (13%) and Tanzanian children (22%).20-27

However our results are in agreement with other local studies.28,31 The limitation of this study is small sample size; further large scale studies are suggested.

CONCLUSION

It was concluded that, according to ICON, a high number of cases were in need of the orthodontic therapy and majority of the patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were in difficult grades.

REFERENCES

1 Almutairi FL, Hodges SJ, Hunt NP. Occlusal outcomes in combined orthodontic and orthognathic treatment. Journal of orthodontics. 2017 Jan 2;44(1):28-33.

2 Lopez MF, Rojo MF, Rojo JF, Garcia AR. Comparison between the ICON index and the esthetic component of the IOTN to determine the need for orthodontic treatment. Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia. 2017 Mar 31;5(1):e10-13.

3 Martin JS, Chaffee BW, Ching I, Orellana MF, Aamodt K. Latino adolescents' self-perceived malocclusion is more correlated with quality of life than are examiner assessments. Annals of Global Health. 2016 May 1;82(3):583-84.

4 Green JI. An Overview of the Peer Assessment Rating (par) Index for Primary Dental Care Practitioners. Primary Dental Journal. 2016 Nov 1;5(4):28-37.

5 Svedstrom-Oristo AL, Ekholm H, Tolvanen M, Peltomaki T. Self-reported temporomandibular disorder symptoms and severity of malocclusion in prospective orthognathic-surgical patients. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 2016 Aug 17;74(6):466-70.

6 Twigge E, Roberts RM, Jamieson L, Dreyer CW, Sampson WJ. The psycho-social impact of malocclusions and treatment expectations of adolescent orthodontic patients. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2016 Dec 1;38(6):593-601.

7 Heath EM, English JD, Johnson CD, Swearingen EB, Akyalcin S. Perceptions of orthodontic case complexity among orthodontists, general practitioners, orthodontic residents, and dental students. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2017 Feb 28;151(2):335-41.

8 Pasapula S, Sherriff M, Breckon J, Bister D, Abela S. Comparison of validity, repeatability and reproducibility of the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) between digital and conventional study models. Australian Orthodontic Journal. 2016 Nov;32(2):184.

9 Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an orthodontic treatment priority index. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:309-20.

10 Daniels CP, Richmond S. The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). J Orthod 2000;27:149-62.

11 Farahani AB, Eslamipour F. The relationship between ICON index and Dental and Aesthetic components of IOTN index. World J Orthod. 2010;11:43-48.

12 Howard-Bowles E, Ho-A-Yun J, Ulhaq A, McGuinness NJ. The application of the Index of Orthognathic Functional Treatment Need (IOFTN): service evaluation and impact. Journal of Orthodontics. 2017 Apr 7:1-8.

13 Ireland AJ, Cunningham SJ, Petrie A, Cobourne MT, Acharya P, Sandy JR, Hunt NP. An index of orthognathic functional treatment need (IOFTN). Journal of orthodontics. 2014 Jun 1;41(2):77-83.

14 Fox NA, Daniels C, Gilgrass T. A comparison of the index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) with the peer assessment rating (PAR) and the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN). British dental journal. 2002 Aug 24;193(4):225-30.

15 Savastano NJ, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Vig KW. Validation of the complexity and treatment outcome components of the index of complexity, outcome, and need (ICON). American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2003 Sep 30;124(3):244-48.

16 Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2007 Feb 28;131(2):248-52.

17 Onyeaso CO. Orthodontic treatment complexity and need in a group of Nigerian patients: the relationship between the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) and the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON). J Contemp Dent Pract. 2007 Mar 1;8(3): 37-44.

18 Veenema AC, Katsaros C, Boxum SC, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need scored on plaster and digital models. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2009 Jun 1;31(3):281-86.

19 Templeton KM, Powell R, Moore MB, Williams AC, Sandy JR. Are the Peer Assessment Rating Index and the Index of Treatment Complexity, Outcome, and Need suitable measures for orthognathic outcomes?. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2006 Oct 1;28(5):462-66.

20 Hamdan AM. Orthodontic treatment need in Jordanian school children. Community Dent Health 2001;18:177-80.

21 Kerosuo H, Al Enezi S, Kerosuo E, Abdulkarim E. Association between normative and self-perceived orthodontic treatment need among Arab high school students. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:373-78.

22 Holmes A. The subjective need and demand for orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1992;19:287-97.

23 Crowther P, Harkness M, Herbison P. Orthodontic treatment need in 10-year-old Dunedin schoolchildren. N Z Dent J 1997;93:72-78.

24 Abdullah MS, Rock WP. Assessment of orthodontic treatment need in 5,112 Malaysian children using the IOTN and DAI indices. Community Dent Health 2001;18:242-48.

25 So LLY, Tang ELK. A comparative study using the occlusal index and index of orthodontic treatment need. Angle Orthod 1993; 63:57-64.

26 Otuyemi OD, Ugboko VI, Adekoya-Sofowora CA, Ndukwe KC. Unmet orthodontic treatment need in rural Nigerian adolescents. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:363-66.

27 Mugonzibwa EA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Van't Hof MA, Kikwilu EN. Perceptions of dental attractiveness and orthodontic treatment need among Tanzanian children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:426-34.

28 Bashir U. An index study of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN) at de,Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore. CPSP Dissertation 2000.

29 Hameed WM, Naaeem S, Mahmood A. Orthodontic treatment need and pretreatment complexity at de'Montmorency College of Dentistry, Lahore, by using Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). Pak Oral and Dent J. 2002;22:119-26.

30 Zahid S, Bashir U, Arshad N, Kaleem OH, Hasan R, Iftikhar A, Shah AM. Orthodontic treatment need in 13-30 years patients by using the index of orthodontic treatment need. Pak Oral and Dent J. 2010;30(1):108-14.

31 Awaisi ZH, Asad S, Mahmood A. Patient perception regarding impact of Orthodontic treatment. Pak Oral and Dental Journal. 2011;31(1):96-99.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Pakistan Oral and Dental Journal
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9PAKI
Date:Sep 30, 2017
Words:2237
Previous Article:EVALUATION OF MEAN SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF ORTHODONTIC METAL BRACKETS BONDED WITH FLOWABLE COMPOSITES USED WITH AND WITHOUT INTERMEDIATE BONDING...
Next Article:PAIN ANTICIPATED and PAIN EXPERIENCED DURING ORTHODONTIC PROCEDURES.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters