Indics /certified fixed orthodontic courses by Indian dental academy

2,364 views

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

Published in: Education
0 Comments
10 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,364
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
10
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Indics /certified fixed orthodontic courses by Indian dental academy

  1. 1. INDICES INDIAN DENTAL ACADEMY Leader in continuing dental education www.indiandentalacademy.com www.indiandentalacademy.com
  2. 2. 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 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. 3. Requirements of ideal orthodontic index are – (Jamison H.D. and Mc Millan R.S ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Simple, reliable and reproducible. Objective and yield quantitative data. Differentiate b/w handicapping and non handicapping malocclusions. Measure degree of handicap. Quick examination. Amenable to modifications. Usable either on patient or on study model. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  4. 4. 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. 5.  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. 6. Types of Indices ( according to Richmond et al)  Diagnostic Classification  Angle’s classification  Incisor classification  Epidemiologic indices  Study prevalence of malocclusion in population.  Eg 1.Summer’s occlusal index. 2. Registration of malocclusion described by Bjork, Krebs and Solow www.indiandentalacademy.com
  7. 7.  Treatment need ( Treatment priority) indices.    Treatment outcome indices.    Categorize malocclusion according to levels of treatment needs. Eg 1. Index Of Treatment Need (IOTN) 2. Draker’s Handicapping Labio – Lingual Deviation index (HLD) 3. Grainger’s Treatment Priority Index.(TPI) 4. Salzmann’s Handicapping Malocclusion Index Assesssment of changes resulting from treatment Eg 1. Peer Assessment Rating index 2. Summer’s index Treatment complexity index  Index of Complexity Outcome and Need (ICON) www.indiandentalacademy.com
  8. 8. Various indices of Occlusion  Master and Frankel (1951)  Count the number of teeth displaced or rotated  Qualitative assessment  Malalignment Index byVankrik and Pennel (1959)  Tooth displacement and rotations were measured. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  9. 9. Angles classi - Molar relnClass I Class II Class III www.indiandentalacademy.com
  10. 10. Incisor classi- Incisor reln Class I Class II Class III www.indiandentalacademy.com
  11. 11. Skeletal classi- Class I Class II Class III www.indiandentalacademy.com
  12. 12. Handicapping Labio – Lingual deviation index(Draker-1960)  Handicapping malocc and dentofacial anomalies.  permanent dentition  Administrative needs  Weighting factors by trial and error.  9 components www.indiandentalacademy.com
  13. 13. Conditions observed 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Cleft palate Severe Traumatic deviations Overjet in mm Overbite in mm Mandibular protrusion in mm Open bite in mm Ectopic eruption ,Anteriors only Anterior crowding : Maxilla Anterior crowding : Mandible TOTAL www.indiandentalacademy.com HLD score Score 15 Score 15 x5 x4 x3
  14. 14. Handicapping Labio – Lingual deviation index by Draker (1960)  Modification  aim  7 components.  Boley gauge scaled in mm.  score 13 and over physical handicap www.indiandentalacademy.com
  15. 15. 7 conditions of HLD index are 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.      Cleft palate Traumatic deviations Overjet Overbite Mandibular protrusion Open bite Labio Lingual spread codes – ‘O’ = condition present ‘X’ = condition absent ‘M’= mixed dentition ‘A’= Clinical approval ‘D’=Clinical www.indiandentalacademy.com disapproval
  16. 16. Occlusal index- Summers (1966)  Assess severity  9 weighted and defined measurements – Molar relation Over jet Overbite Posterior cross bite Posterior open bite Tooth displacement Midline relation Maxillary median diastema Congenitally missing maxillary incisors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  17. 17. 7 malocc syndromes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.  OJ,OB Distal molar relation,OJ,OB, post crossbite, midline diastema, mid line deviation. Congen missing max incisors. Tooth displacement. Post OB Mesial molar reln,OJ,OB, post crossbite, midline diastema, mid line deviation. Mesial molar reln, mixed dentition analysis (potential tooth disp), tooth disp Diff scoring schemes and forms . www.indiandentalacademy.com
  18. 18. Treatment priority index- Grainger (1967) Public health significance    Malocclusion Severity Estimate (MSE) -Grainger 1960-61 MSE score- largest value potential tooth displacement (mixed-dentition space analysis), rating distoclusion, mesioclusion equally. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  19. 19.  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 11 weighted and defined measurements – Upper ant OJ. Lower ant OB. OB Ant openbite. Congenital absence of incisors. Distal molar relation Mesial molar relation Posterior cross bite (max. teeth buccal to normal). Posterior cross bite (max. teeth lingual to normal). Tooth displacement Gross anomalies. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  20. 20. 7 malocc syndromes defined 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Prognathism Retrognathism Overbite Openbite Maxillary expansion syndrome Maxillary collapse syndrome Congenitally missing incisors www.indiandentalacademy.com
  21. 21. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  22. 22.  1. 2. 3. 4. TPI is based on a scale of 0 (near ideal occlusion) 1 - 3 ( mild malocclusion) 4 – 6 ( Moderate malocclusion) Over 6 ( severe malocclusion)  TPI scores only occlusal characteristics, excluding skeletal and facial components.  TPI is used in national studies of orthodontic needs for children. Eg. USPHS study in USA of childeren aged b/w 6-11 yrs in year 1967 www.indiandentalacademy.com
  23. 23. Handicapping malocclusion assessment records by Salzmann (1968)  1. Purpose – establish priority for treatment according to severity shown by score. Weighted measurements 3 parts – Intra arch deviations Missing teeth Crowding Rotation Spacing 2. Interarch deviations Overjet Overbite Crossbite Openbite Mesiodistal deviations www.indiandentalacademy.com
  24. 24. 3. Six handicapping dento-facial deformities 6. Facial and oral clefts Lower lip palatal to maxillary incisors. Occlusal interferences Functional jaw limitations Facial asymmetry Speech impairment.  add 8 points > 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  25. 25. Instruction for Scoring www.indiandentalacademy.com
  26. 26. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  27. 27. Irregularity index - Robert Little(1975) Measuring linear displacement www.indiandentalacademy.com
  28. 28. Sum of 5 disp- degree of ant irregularity Dial calipers used Measuremets from casts www.indiandentalacademy.com
  29. 29. Phase one7 orthodontists – 50 casts 0 Perfect allignment 1-3 Min irregularity 4-6 Moderate irregularity 7-9 Severe irregularity 10 Very severe irregularity www.indiandentalacademy.com
  30. 30. Phase 2- •5 orthodontists – 25 casts •2 separate occasions •10 severity estimates for each cast www.indiandentalacademy.com
  31. 31. Scattergram- www.indiandentalacademy.com
  32. 32. Peer Assessment Rating Index (PAR) by Richmond et al., 1987  10 British orthodontists.  Effectiveness Orth tmnt.  Assigns scores to different occlusal traits.  Study models used.  A scoring system and a ruler. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  33. 33. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  34. 34.  5 components1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Weighting Upper & lower anterior segment - 1 Left and right buccal segments 1 Over jet - 6 Overbite - 2 Centerlines - 4  summed final score..  change in total score- success of treatment. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  35. 35.  1. 2.   Change expressed as: 22 point reduction – Greatly improved < 30% reduction – worse/ no better > 30% reduction – Improved. Indicator of clinical performance. Limitations of PAR 1. Generic weightings of OJ and OB. 2. Sensitive to malocclusion with high OJ. 3. OB low weighting.. 4. Facial profiles not considered Eg. Bimaxillary protrusion www.indiandentalacademy.com
  36. 36. TheValidation of PAR for Malocclusion severity and Treatment Difficulty De Guzman,bahiraei, Vig, Weyant and O’Brien – AJO-DO 1995  11 American Orthodontists -200 casts  Results PAR index weightings -malocc severity and treatment difficulty www.indiandentalacademy.com
  37. 37. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  38. 38. Index of Treatment Need (IOTN) by Shaw  Index has two components1. 2.  Dental Health component – derived from occlusion and alignment. Aesthetic component – Derived from comparison of dental appearance to standard photographs. Aesthetic component is calculated by direct examination, but dental health component can be studied by dental casts. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  39. 39.  A special ruler  Assessed in order : 1. Missing teeth 2. Overjet 3. Crossbites 4. Displacements (Contact point) 5. Overbite www.indiandentalacademy.com
  40. 40. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  41. 41. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  42. 42. Esthetic Index  Grades 8 – 10 = definite need for treatment.  5–7= moderate/ borderline need  1 – 4 = No/ slight need www.indiandentalacademy.com
  43. 43. Limitations 1. 2. 3. In aesthetic component ,Class III not considered. Facial profile not considered. Class I bimaxillary protrusion not considered. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  44. 44. Index of Complexity Outcome and Need (ICON)   97 orthodontists various countries. patients and Dental casts.  A single assessment method to record complexity, outcome and need.  5 components -1 min to measure. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  45. 45. 1. Aesthetic component  2. Upper arch Crowding/ Spacing    3. 4. Score according to amount of crowding or spacing Impacted teeth in either arch immediately scored 5 Spacing in one part can cancel out crowding elsewhere. Crossbite Incisor open bite/ overbite   5. 10 pictures Open bite measured at mid incisal edges Deep bite is measured at deepest part of overbite. Buccal segment Antero posterior  Quality of buccal segment interdigitation is measured (not Angles Classification) www.indiandentalacademy.com
  46. 46. 1. Aesthetic component www.indiandentalacademy.com
  47. 47. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  48. 48. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  49. 49. Limitations 1. 2. 3. Overjet not considered. Lower anterior crowding not considered. Midline shift not taken in account. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  50. 50. Goslon yardstick :A new system of assessing dental arch relationships in children with UCLP – Michael Mars, Dennis A. Plint : 1987 A cleft Palate journal  The Goslon Yardstick- clinical tool, 5 discrete categories. Objective :  1. categorize malocclusions in UCLP – severity,difficulty 2. compare results of different approaches to the early treatment of children with UCLP. www.indiandentalacademy.com
  51. 51.  Development of Yardstick – Imp clinical feat 1. 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. 2. 3.   30 cases taken. ranked by 4 orthodontists, separated in 5 groups www.indiandentalacademy.com
  52. 52. Group 1 – excellent www.indiandentalacademy.com
  53. 53. Group 2 – good www.indiandentalacademy.com
  54. 54.  Group 1 or 2 - simple orthodontic treatment/ no treatment www.indiandentalacademy.com
  55. 55. Group 3 – fair complex ortho tnmt, good result antisipated www.indiandentalacademy.com
  56. 56. Group 4 – poor limited ortho tmnt without orthognathic surgery,if growth fav www.indiandentalacademy.com
  57. 57. Group 5 – very poor Orthognathic surgery www.indiandentalacademy.com
  58. 58. 5yr old’s Index(Atack)Subjects & mothod-Born UCLF -Repair of ULCP -No orth tmnt -No bone grafting -Casts www.indiandentalacademy.com
  59. 59. Intra-examiner www.indiandentalacademy.com
  60. 60. Inter-examiner www.indiandentalacademy.com
  61. 61. Reln of Golson ranking www.indiandentalacademy.com
  62. 62. Group 1-Excelent www.indiandentalacademy.com
  63. 63. Group 2- Good www.indiandentalacademy.com
  64. 64. Group 3-Fair www.indiandentalacademy.com
  65. 65. Group 4- Poor www.indiandentalacademy.com
  66. 66. Group 5- Very poor www.indiandentalacademy.com
  67. 67. Plaque index-Stilness& loe www.indiandentalacademy.com
  68. 68. Gingival index – Loe & Stilness www.indiandentalacademy.com
  69. 69. Thank you For more details please visit www.indiandentalacademy.com www.indiandentalacademy.com

×