Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2018 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4

Evaluation of Orthodontic Patients at State and Foundation Universities According to the ICON Index

Pages
122–126
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At both universities, nearly one-third of patients were evaluated as “no treatment needed.” The ICON index was found tobe a reliable index in terms of reproducibility.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In Turkey, orthodontic treatments of individuals aged <18 years are covered by the Social Security Institution (SSI) accord-ing to the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) index at contracted healthcare providers.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was todetermine treatment needs and difficulties of patients applying to orthodontic clinics in state and foundation universities in Istanbulaccording to the ICON and to evaluate the extent of treatment coverage by the SSI.Methods: Pre-treatment study casts of 831 patients were evaluated in terms of treatment needs and difficulties according to theICON.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At both universities, nearly one-third of patients were evaluated as “no treatment needed.” The ICON index was found tobe a reliable index in terms of reproducibility.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: In Turkey, orthodontic treatments of individuals aged <18 years are covered by the Social Security Institution (SSI) accord-ing to the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) index at contracted healthcare providers. The aim of this study was todetermine treatment needs and difficulties of patients applying to orthodontic clinics in state and foundation universities in Istanbulaccording to the ICON and to evaluate the extent of treatment coverage by the SSI.Methods: Pre-treatment study casts of 831 patients were evaluated in terms of treatment needs and difficulties according to theICON. This sample was distributed as 677 patients who applied to a State University’s Orthodontic Department and 154 who appliedto a Foundation University’s Orthodontic Department.Results: At the state university, 27.9% of the 437 patients had a score of <43 and were thus, described as “no treatment needed.” Atthe foundation university, 35% of the 154 patients had a score <43 and were thus, described as “no treatment needed.” When the ICONscores of the two universities were compared, no statistically significant difference was found between treatment needs distributions.Conclusion: The number of patients who applied for treatment for the same period was three times higher in the state universitythan in the foundation university, whereas the rates of treatment needs were found to be similar between both state and foundationuniversities. At both universities, nearly one-third of patients were evaluated as “no treatment needed.” The ICON index was found tobe a reliable index in terms of reproducibility.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖĞÜTLÜ, N. Y., ALMAHDI, E., SAYAR, G., KILIÇOĞLU, H. (2018). Evaluation of Orthodontic Patients at State and Foundation Universities According to the ICON Index. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 4, 122–126. https://ajindex.com/articles/375092

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Templeton KM, Powell R, Moore MB, Williams AC, Sandy JR. Are the Peer Assessment Rating Index and the Index of Treatment Com- plexity, Outcome, and Need suitable measures for orthognathic outcomes? Eur J Orthod 2006; 28: 462-6. [CrossRef ] Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the index of complexi- ty, outcome and need (ICON). J Orthod 2000; 27: 149-62. [CrossRef ] Llewellyn SK, Hamdan AM, Rock WP. An index of orthodontic treat- ment complexity. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29: 186-92. [CrossRef ] Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Ste- phens CD, et al.The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assess- ment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992; 14: 125- 39. [CrossRef ] Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989; 11: 309-20. [CrossRef ] Draker HL. Handicapping labio-lingual deviations: a proposed in- dex for public health purposes. Am J Orthod 1960; 46: 295-305. [CrossRef ] http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2012/01/20120121-4.htm Ankara Valiliği İl Sağlık Müdürlüğü Tebligatı-Ortodonti tedavi ger- ekliliği indeksi http://www.asm.gov.tr/UploadGenelDosyalar/Sub- eDosyalari/Dosyalar/31_08_2016_10_51_24.pdf Onyeaso CO, BeGole EA. Orthodontic treatment need in an accred- ited graduate orthodontic center in North America: a pilot study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7: 87-94.
  2. Onyeaso CO, BeGole EA. Orthodontic treatment standard in an accredited graduate orthodontic clinic in North America assessed using the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). Hell Or- thod Rev 2006; 9: 23-24.
  3. Firestone AR, Beck FM, Beglin FM, Vig KW. Validity of the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) in determining orthodon- tic treatment need. Angle Orthod 2002; 72: 15-20.
  4. Torkan S, Pakshir HR, Fattahi HR, Oshagh M, Danaei SM, Salehi P, et al. An Analytical Study on an Orthodontic Index: Index of Complex- ity, Outcome and Need (ICON). J Dent 2015; 16: 149. Kamak H, Çağlaroğlu M, Çatalbaş B, Keklik H. İç Anadolu Bölgesi Ortodontik Tedavi İhtiyacının ICON İndeksi Kullanılarak Değerlendi- rilmesi. J Dent fac Atatürk Uni 2012; 22: 149-153.
  5. Utomi IL, Onyeaso CO. Orthodontic treatment complexity and need in a Nigerian Teaching Hospital. Oral Health Dent Manag 2014; 13: 562-7. López MFC, Rojo MFG, Rojo JFG, García ARR. Comparison between the ICON index and the esthetic component of the IOTN to deter- mine the need for orthodontic treatment. Revista Mexicana de Ort- odoncia 2017; 5: e10-e13. [CrossR