INDICES

www.indiandentalacademy.com

1
INDIAN DENTAL ACADEMY
Leader in continuing dental education
www.indiandentalacademy.com

www.indiandentalacademy.com

2
Index
According to Russell, an index is defined as
‘A numerical value describing the relative status
of the population on ...
Requirements of ideal orthodontic index are –
(Jamison H.D. and Mc Millan R.S )
1. Simple, reliable and reproducible.
2. O...
Types of Indices ( according to WHO)
 Occlusal Classification
– Angle’s classification by Angle in 1899
– Incisor classif...
 Treatment assessment
– Little’s irregularity index by Little 1975
– Peer Assessment rating by Richmond et al, 1987
 Cle...
Peer Assessment Rating Index
(PAR index)
by Richmond et al., 1987


Developed by 10 experienced British orthodontists.

...
www.indiandentalacademy.com

8
5 components-

Weighting
1. Upper & lower anterior segment - 1
2. Left and right buccal segments 1
3. Over jet
- 6
4. Ove...

1.
2.




Change expressed as:
Reduction in weighted PAR score : 22 point
reduction – Greatly improved
% reduction in ...
TheValidation of PAR for Malocclusion severity
and Treatment Difficulty
De Guzman,bahiraei, Vig, Weyant and O’Brien – AJO-...
www.indiandentalacademy.com

12
Index of Treatment Need (IOTN)
by Brook &Shaw - 1987

 Index has two components1. Dental Health component – derived from
...
www.indiandentalacademy.com

14
A special ruler summarizes the information
needed for dental health component.
 Assessed in order :
1. Missing teeth
2. ...
www.indiandentalacademy.com

16
Esthetic Index
 Grades 8 – 10 =
definite need for
treatment.
 5 – 7 = moderate/
borderline need
 1 – 4 = No/ slight
nee...
Limitations
1.
2.
3.

In aesthetic component ,Class III not considered.
Facial profile not considered.
Class I bimaxillary...
Index of Complexity Outcome and Need
(ICON)

 A single assessment method to record
complexity, outcome and need.
 Based ...
ICON Scoring Method

www.indiandentalacademy.com

20
1. Aesthetic component

www.indiandentalacademy.com

21
www.indiandentalacademy.com

22
Limitations
1.
2.
3.

Overjet not considered.
Lower anterior crowding/spacing not considered.
Midline shift not taken in a...
Goslon yardstick :A new system of assessing
dental arch relationships in childeren with UCLP – Michael
Mars, Dennis A. Pli...

1.
2.
3.

Development of Yardstick – Clinical features
considered most important in characterizing
malocclusion in child...
 Group 1 – excellent





Group 2 – good
Group 3 – fair
Group 4 – poor
Group 5 – very poor

 Group 1 or 2 - simple o...
www.indiandentalacademy.com

27
www.indiandentalacademy.com

28
www.indiandentalacademy.com

29
www.indiandentalacademy.com

30
www.indiandentalacademy.com

31
References:
1.
2.
3.

Contemporary Orthodontics – Proffit
M Ortho Journal – Bristol University
Longitudinal evaluation of ...
6. Handicapping Malocclusion assessment to establish
treatment Priority J A Salzmann – AJO –1964
7. The use of Occlusal In...
Thank you
www.indiandentalacademy.com
Leader in continuing dental education

www.indiandentalacademy.com

34
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

indices 2 / dental crown & bridge courses /certified fixed orthodontic courses by Indian dental academy

217

Published on





The Indian Dental Academy is the Leader in continuing dental education , training dentists in all aspects of dentistry and offering a wide range of dental certified courses in different formats.

Indian dental academy provides dental crown & Bridge,rotary endodontics,fixed orthodontics,
Dental implants courses.for details pls visit www.indiandentalacademy.com ,or call
0091-9248678078


The Indian Dental Academy is the Leader in continuing dental education , training dentists in all aspects of dentistry and offering a wide range of dental certified courses in different formats.


Indian dental academy provides dental crown & Bridge,rotary endodontics,fixed orthodontics,
Dental implants courses.for details pls visit www.indiandentalacademy.com ,or call
00919248678078

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
217
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of " indices 2 / dental crown & bridge courses /certified fixed orthodontic courses by Indian dental academy "

  1. 1. INDICES www.indiandentalacademy.com 1
  2. 2. INDIAN DENTAL ACADEMY Leader in continuing dental education www.indiandentalacademy.com www.indiandentalacademy.com 2
  3. 3. Index According to Russell, an index is defined as ‘A numerical value describing the relative status of the population on a graduated scale with definite upper and lower limits which is designed to permit and facilitate comparison with other population classified with the same criteria and the method.’ In the orthodontic context index is described as – ‘A rating or categorizing system that assigns a numeric score or alpha numeric label to a person’s occlusion.’ www.indiandentalacademy.com 3
  4. 4. Requirements of ideal orthodontic index are – (Jamison H.D. and Mc Millan R.S ) 1. Simple, reliable and reproducible. 2. Objective and yield quantitative data. 3. Differentiate b/w handicapping and non handicapping malocclusions. 4. Measure degree of handicap. 5. Quick examination. 6. Amenable to modifications. 7. Usable either on patient or on study model. www.indiandentalacademy.com 4
  5. 5. Types of Indices ( according to WHO)  Occlusal Classification – Angle’s classification by Angle in 1899 – Incisor classification by Ballard and Wayman, 1964  Skeletal classification by Houston et al, 1993  Malocclusion – Occlusal index by Summers 1966 – Handicapping Malocclusion Assessment Record (HMAR) by Salzmann, 1968 – Index of Treatment Need by Evans and Shaw 1987 www.indiandentalacademy.com 5
  6. 6.  Treatment assessment – Little’s irregularity index by Little 1975 – Peer Assessment rating by Richmond et al, 1987  Cleft Outcome – Goslon Yardstick by Mars et al, 1987 – 5Year olds’ Index by Atack et al ,1997  Periodontal – Plaque Index by Stilness & Loe , 1964 – Gingival Index. by Loe & Stilness, 1963 www.indiandentalacademy.com 6
  7. 7. Peer Assessment Rating Index (PAR index) by Richmond et al., 1987  Developed by 10 experienced British orthodontists.  Its developed mainly to assess effectiveness of Orthodontic treatment.  Assigns scores to different occlusal traits.  Study models used.  A scoring system and a ruler. www.indiandentalacademy.com 7
  8. 8. www.indiandentalacademy.com 8
  9. 9. 5 components- Weighting 1. Upper & lower anterior segment - 1 2. Left and right buccal segments 1 3. Over jet - 6 4. Overbite - 2 5. Centerlines - 4  Individual scores are summed to get a final score..  Index is applied to both the start and end of treatment study casts, and change in total score reflects the success of treatment. www.indiandentalacademy.com 9
  10. 10.  1. 2.   Change expressed as: Reduction in weighted PAR score : 22 point reduction – Greatly improved % reduction in weighted PAR score: < 30% reduction – worse/ no better > 30% reduction – Improved. Indicator of clinical performance. Limitations of PAR 1. Generic weightings of Over jet and overbite. 2. Sensitive to malocclusion with high over jet. 3. Overbite low weighting.. 4. Facial profiles not considered Eg. Bimaxillary protrusion www.indiandentalacademy.com 10
  11. 11. TheValidation of PAR for Malocclusion severity and Treatment Difficulty De Guzman,bahiraei, Vig, Weyant and O’Brien – AJO-DO 1995  11 American Orthodontists examined a sample of 200 sets of study casts and rated them for malocclusion severity and perceived treatment difficulty.  The results of this study made it possible to derive a set of weightings for the PAR index, for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty, according to perceptions of panel of Orthodontists. www.indiandentalacademy.com 11
  12. 12. www.indiandentalacademy.com 12
  13. 13. Index of Treatment Need (IOTN) by Brook &Shaw - 1987  Index has two components1. Dental Health component – derived from occlusion and alignment – Dental casts. 2. Aesthetic component – Derived from comparison of dental appearance to standard photographs. – direct examination www.indiandentalacademy.com 13
  14. 14. www.indiandentalacademy.com 14
  15. 15. A special ruler summarizes the information needed for dental health component.  Assessed in order : 1. Missing teeth 2. Overjet 3. Crossbites 4. Displacements (Contact point) 5. Overbite www.indiandentalacademy.com 15
  16. 16. www.indiandentalacademy.com 16
  17. 17. Esthetic Index  Grades 8 – 10 = definite need for treatment.  5 – 7 = moderate/ borderline need  1 – 4 = No/ slight need www.indiandentalacademy.com 17
  18. 18. Limitations 1. 2. 3. In aesthetic component ,Class III not considered. Facial profile not considered. Class I bimaxillary protrusion not considered. www.indiandentalacademy.com 18
  19. 19. Index of Complexity Outcome and Need (ICON)  A single assessment method to record complexity, outcome and need.  Based on expert opinions of 97 orthodontists from various countries.  For use on patients and Dental casts. www.indiandentalacademy.com 19
  20. 20. ICON Scoring Method www.indiandentalacademy.com 20
  21. 21. 1. Aesthetic component www.indiandentalacademy.com 21
  22. 22. www.indiandentalacademy.com 22
  23. 23. Limitations 1. 2. 3. Overjet not considered. Lower anterior crowding/spacing not considered. Midline shift not taken in account. www.indiandentalacademy.com 23
  24. 24. Goslon yardstick :A new system of assessing dental arch relationships in childeren with UCLP – Michael Mars, Dennis A. Plint : 1987 A cleft Palate journal  The Goslon Yardstick is a clinical tool that allows categorization of the dental relationships in the late mixed and or early permanent dentition in to 5 discrete categories.  Objective : 1. To categorize malocclusions in patients with UCLP to represent severity of malocclusion and the difficulty of correcting it. 2. To compare long term results of different approaches to the early treatment of children with UCLP. www.indiandentalacademy.com 24
  25. 25.  1. 2. 3. Development of Yardstick – Clinical features considered most important in characterizing malocclusion in children with UCLP are – A- P arch relationship –Class III incisor relationship> class II div I Vertical labial segment relationship – Open bite> Reduced overbite > deep overbite. Transverse relationship – Canine crossbites > molar crossbites.  To test the application of these subjective criteria study models of 30 cases were taken.  These models were ranked by 4 orthodontists and separated in 5 groups , which then formed basis for yardstick. www.indiandentalacademy.com 25
  26. 26.  Group 1 – excellent     Group 2 – good Group 3 – fair Group 4 – poor Group 5 – very poor  Group 1 or 2 - simple orthodontic treatment/ no treatment  Group 3 – complex orthodontic treatment  Group 4 – limit of orthodontic treatment without orthognathic surgery  Group 5 – Orthognathic surgery www.indiandentalacademy.com 26
  27. 27. www.indiandentalacademy.com 27
  28. 28. www.indiandentalacademy.com 28
  29. 29. www.indiandentalacademy.com 29
  30. 30. www.indiandentalacademy.com 30
  31. 31. www.indiandentalacademy.com 31
  32. 32. References: 1. 2. 3. Contemporary Orthodontics – Proffit M Ortho Journal – Bristol University Longitudinal evaluation of the Treatment Priority Index (TPI) AJO-DO 1989 : 4. Goslon yardstick A new system of assessing dental arch relationships in childeren with UCLP – Michael Mars, Dennis A. Plint : 1987 A cleft Palate journal 5. The Development of PAR Index – S. Richmond www.indiandentalacademy.com 32
  33. 33. 6. Handicapping Malocclusion assessment to establish treatment Priority J A Salzmann – AJO –1964 7. The use of Occlusal Indices : A European prospective – AJO-DO 1995 8. The validation of PAR for malocclusion severity and treatment difficulty AJO-DO 1995 9. The effectiveness of ClassII div I treatment – AJO-DO 1995 www.indiandentalacademy.com 33
  34. 34. Thank you www.indiandentalacademy.com Leader in continuing dental education www.indiandentalacademy.com 34

×