Journals / Türk Ortodonti Dergisi / 2004 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1

Assessment of orthodontic treatment need and severity of malocclusion in school children aget 7 to 12 years

7-12 yaş okul çocuklarında ortodontik tedavi ihtiyacı ve maloklüzyon şiddetinin incelenmesi

Pages
83–88
Publication Date
2022-11-03
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)

The differences between the TPI values of the boys and girls and the TPI differences between ages were not found statistically significant.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to evaluate the severity of malocclusion and to assess the need for orthodontic treatment among 7-12 years old schoolchildren (246 girls, 266 boys).
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings were that 41.4% of the observed population showed normal occlusion, 39.6% had minor manifestation of malocclusion and treatment need was slight, 15.2% of the subjects showed definite malocclusion, 2.3% had severe malocclusion and 1.4% had a very severe handicap with a mandatory treatment requirement.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The differences between the TPI values of the boys and girls and the TPI differences between ages were not found statistically significant.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the severity of malocclusion and to assess the need for orthodontic treatment among 7-12 years old schoolchildren (246 girls, 266 boys). No subject had any history of craniofacial abnormalities and none had undergone prior orthodontic therapy. The Treatment Priority Index (TPI) was used to record and measure the malocclusions. To assess the range of malocclusions the "Malocclusion Severity Estimate" (MSE) was also used. The findings were that 41.4% of the observed population showed normal occlusion, 39.6% had minor manifestation of malocclusion and treatment need was slight, 15.2% of the subjects showed definite malocclusion, 2.3% had severe malocclusion and 1.4% had a very severe handicap with a mandatory treatment requirement. The differences between the TPI values of the boys and girls were evaluated by chi-square, the TPI differences between ages were examined by using one way ANOVA. The differences between the TPI values of the boys and girls and the TPI differences between ages were not found statistically significant.

Özet

Çalışmamız istanbul ilindeki ilkokul çocuklarının ortodonti tedavi ihtiyaçlarını belirlemek amacıyla planlanmıştır. Bu amaçla orta gelir düzeyine sahip ailelerin çocuklarının devam ettiği bir ilkokulda, yaşları 7-12 arasında 246'sı kız, 266'sı erkek toplam 512 öğrenci araştırma kapsamına alınmıştır. Bireylerin herhangi bir sistemik hastalığı olmamasına ve daha önce hiçbir ortodontik tedavi görmemiş olmasına dikkat edilmiştir. Maloklüzyonların değerlendirilmesinde "Treatment Priority Index" (TPI) kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen TPI değerine göre bireylerin ortodontik tedavi ihtiyacı ve maloklüzyon şiddeti "Malocclusion Severity Estimate" (MSE) tablosuna göre değerlendirilmiştir.incelenen bireylerin %41.4'ü normal oklüzyon, %39.6'sı minör maloklüzyon ve hafif tedavi ihtiyacı, %15.2'si belirgin maloklüzyon ve tedavi gerekliliği, %2.3'ü şiddetli maloklüzyon ve çok tedavi gerekliliği, %1.4'ü çok şiddetli maloklüzyon ve zorunlu tedavi ihtiyacı göstermiştir. Elde edilen sonuçlar tek yönlü varyans analizi ANOVA ve ki-kare testi ile 'Statistiksel yönden değerlendirilmiştir. TPI değerleri ile yaş grupları ve cinsiyet arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇOĞLU, H. (2022). Assessment of orthodontic treatment need and severity of malocclusion in school children aget 7 to 12 years. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 1, 83–88. https://ajindex.com/articles/639523

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosmos 41: 248-64, 1988
  2. Tang ELK, Wei SHY. Recording and measuring malocclusion: A review of the literature. Am J Orthod 103:344-351, 1993
  3. Draker HL. Handicapping labio-lingual deviations. A proposed index for public health purposes Am J Orthod 46:295-305, 1960
  4. Grainger RM. Burlington Orthodontic Research Center progress report. Series 6. University of Toronto, Division of Dental Research, 9-11, 1961
  5. Salzmann JA. Handicapping malocclusion assessment to establish treatment priority Am J Orthod 54:740-765, 1968
  6. Summers CJ. The occiusal index: a system for identifying and scoring occiusal disorders. Am J Orthod 59:552-567, 1971
  7. Hermanson PC, Grewe JM. Examiner variability of several malocclusion indices. Angle Orthod 40:219-35, 1970
  8. Shaw WC. Factors influencing the desire for orthodontic treatment. Europ J Orthod 3:151-162, 1981
  9. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index for orthodontic treatment priority. Europ J Orthod 11:309-332, 1989
  10. Ghafari J, Locke SA, Bentley JM. Longitudinal evali/ation of the Treatment Priority Index (TPI). Am J Orthod 96:382-389, 1989
  11. Dawson-Saunders B, Trapp RG. Basic and Clinical Biostatistics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1990
  12. Uğur T, Ciğer S, Aksoy A, Telli A. An epidemiological survey using the Treatment Priority index (TPI) Europ J Orthod 20:189- 193, 1998
  13. Güray E, Orhan M, Ertaş E, Doruk C. Konya yöresi ilkokul çocuklarında Treatment Priority Index (TPI) uygulaması (Epidemiyolojik Çalışma) Türk Ortodonti Dergisi 7:l95-200,1994
  14. Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien. The relationship betwe the index of treatment need and consensus opinion of a panel 74 dentists. Brit Dent J 178:370-374, 1995
  15. Howells DJ, Shaw WC. The validity and reliability of ratina of dental and facial attractiveness for epidemiologic use. Am Orthod 88:402-408, 1985
  16. Kılıçoğlu H, Arman S, Par C, Çifter M, Akar B. İstanbu Üniversitesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı'na başvuran hastaların pro- filinin incelenmesi. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi (Baskıda)
  17. Gülyurt M. Kliniğimize müracaat eden ve tedavi edilen hasta- ların anomalilere göre dağılımı ve koruyucu ortodontik tedavinin gerekliliği, Oral 9-11, 1985
  18. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Contemporary Orthodontics Third ed. Mosby Company, 2000
  19. Saydam G, Oktay İ, Möller I. Türkiye'de ağız ve diş sağlığı durum analizi. Tür-Ağız-Sağ-001 (DSÖ) 1988.