Indices PDF
Indices PDF
10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1132
An Overview of Orthodontic Indices
REVIEW ARTICLE
ABSTRACT
Analysis of prevalence of various types of malocclusion is an
important aspect of today's evidence-based dentistry.
Orthodontic indices are a tool in the hands of an epidemiologist
to analyze the prevalence and severity of various kinds of
malocclusion. The aim of this article is to look into the various
qualitative and quantitative methods of grading and assessing
malocclusion and their evolution over the years along with their
advantages and limitations have also been analyzed. The article
also compares the commonly used indicesDAI and IOTN.
Keywords: Malocclusion indices, Dental esthetic index, Index
of orthodontic treatment need.
How to cite this article: Agarwal A, Mathur R. An Overview of
Orthodontic Indices. World J Dent 2012;3(1):77-86.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None declared
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, a variety of indices have been developed to
assist professionals in categorizing malocclusion according
to the level of treatment need. However, it is the societal
forces that define the norms for an acceptable, normal and
attractive physical appearance. Identification by children
and their parents of abnormal, unacceptable and disfiguring
dentofacial characteristics is influenced as much by social
context and cultural milieu as by objective criteria.
A good method of recording or measuring malocclusion
is important for documentation of the prevalence and
severity of malocclusion in population groups. This kind of
data is not only important for the epidemiologist, but also
for those who plan for the provision of orthodontic treatment
in a community or for the training of orthodontic specialists.
If the method is universally accepted and applied, data
collected from different population groups can be compared.
The methods of recording and measuring malocclusion can
be broadly divided into two types: Qualitative and
quantitative. A method that measures malocclusion
quantitatively can also be used to assess treatment effects
of orthodontic appliances.
A review of the literature related to the recording and
measuring of malocclusion severity found that most of the
investigations were published between the 1940s and the
1970s. In the past decade, there have been relatively few
publications that discussed this topic. In order to fulfill the
research gap, the objective of this article is to review the
literature related to the quantitative and qualitative methods
of recording and measuring malocclusion and to discuss
the two commonly used indices, DAI and IOTN.
World Journal of Dentistry, January-March 2012;3(1):77-86
QUALITATIVE METHODS OF
RECORDING MALOCCLUSION
The earliest methods of recording malocclusion were
qualitative ones. A summary of the more important methods
is presented in Table 1.
Angles method of classifying malocclusion with or
without modifications has been widely accepted and is still
in use since it was first published in 1899.1 There have been
many critiques of Angles classification of malocclusion.
Case2 pointed out that Angles method disregarded the
relationship of the teeth to the face; and although
malocclusion was a three-dimensional problem, Angles
system had only taken into account anteroposterior
deviations in the sagittal plane. When reliability was tested
by Gravely and Johnson,3 they found that the betweenexaminer errors, as well as the within-examiner errors in
categorizing Angle class II, division 2 malocclusions, were
both relatively high. Nonetheless, it must be remembered
that Angle devised his classification method as a prescription
for treatment, not as an index of malocclusion or an
epidemiologic tool as it was used later by other researchers.
On the basis of the principles developed for defining
and recording individual traits of malocclusion by Bjrk et
al,4 a simplified method was developed during the years
1969 to 1972 by the working group 2 (WG2) of the FDI
commission on classification and statistics for oral
conditions. During the period 1973 to 1976, the method
was field tested and modified. Final modifications were
carried out by the WG2 in collaboration with the World
Health Organization. The final version of the WHO/FDI
basic method for recording of malocclusion was published
in the bulletin of the World Health Organization in 1979.5
The primary objective of the assessment method was to
determine the prevalence of malocclusion and dental
irregularities and to estimate the treatment needs of a
population, as a basis for the planning of orthodontic
services.
Trends can be identified when reviewing the development of the qualitative methods of recording malocclusion.
Researchers in the earlier days did not define the
malocclusion symptoms to be recorded, 6-8 thus,
malocclusion symptoms were recorded in an all-or-none
manner. However, in 1964, Bjrk, Krebs and Solow4
developed a detailed method to record malocclusion with
clearly defined items. The methods developed by the
WHO/FDI 5 also followed the trend of recording
malocclusion symptoms with very carefully defined criteria.
77
Stallard (1932)
The general dental status, including some malocclusion symptoms, was recorded.
No definition of the various symptoms was specified.
Mc Call (1944)
Malocclusion symptoms recorded include molar relationship, posterior crossbite, anterior crowding,
rotated incisors, excessive overbite, open bite, labial or lingual version, tooth displacement,
constriction of arches.
No definition of these symptoms was specified.
Symptoms were recorded in all or none manner.
Sclare (1945)
Specific malocclusion symptoms were recorded, which include Angle's classification of molar relationship,
arch constriction with incisor crowding, arch constriction without incisor crowding, superior protrusion
with incisor crowding, superior protrusion without incisor crowding, labial prominence of canines, lingually
placed incisors, rotated incisors, crossbite, open bite and closed bite.
No definition of these symptoms was specified.
Symptoms were recorded in all or none manner.
Fisk (1960)
Objective registration of malocclusion symptoms based on detailed definitions. Data obtained could
be analyzed by computers.
Three parts:
1. Anomalies in the dentition: Tooth anomalies, abnormal eruption, malalignment of individual teeth.
2. Occlusal anomalies: Deviation in the positional relationship between the upper and lower dental
arches in the sagittal, vertical and transverse plane.
3. Deviations in space conditions: Spacing or crowding.
Proffit and Ackerman (1973) Five steps procedure of assessing malocclusion (no definite criteria for assessment was given):
1. Alignment: Ideal, crowding, spacing, mutilated.
2. Profile: Mandibular prominence, mandibular recession, lip profile relative to nose and chin
(convex, straight, concave).
3. Crossbite: Relationship of dental arches in the transverse plane, as indicated by buccolingual
relationship of posterior teeth.
4. Angle's classification: Relationship of the dental arches in the sagittal plane.
5. Bite depth: Relationship of the dental arches in the vertical plane, as indicated by the presence
and absence of anterior open bite, anterior deep bite, posterior open bite and posterior collapsed
bite.
WHO/FDI (1979)
Five major groups of items were recorded (with well-defined recording criteria) as follows:
1. Gross anomalies.
2. Dentition: Absent teeth, supernumerary teeth, malformed incisors, ectopic eruption.
3. Spaced condition: Diastema, crowding, spacing.
4. Occlusion:
A. Incisor segment: Maxillary overjet, mandibular overjet, crossbite, overbite, open bite, midline
shift.
B. Lateral segment: Anteropostero relations, open bite, posterior crossbite.
5. Orthodontic treatment need judged subjectively: Not necessary, doubtful, necessary.
78
WJD
An Overview of Orthodontic Indices
Table 2: Summary of various indices of occlusion
Massler and Frankel (1951)
Malalignment index by
Vankirk and Pennell (1959)
Handicapping labiolingual
deviation index by Braker (1960)
Occlusal feature index by
Poulton and Aaronson (1961)
Malocclusion severity estimate
by Grainger (1960-61)
Handicapping malocclusion
assessment record by
Salzmann (1968)
Contd...
79
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Peer assessment rating index
(PAR index) Richmond (1992)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
80
JAYPEE
WJD
An Overview of Orthodontic Indices
Contd..
Index of complexity,
outcome and need
(ICON) Richmond (2000)
16
81
Handicapping Malocclusion
Assessment Record (HMAR)
In 1968, Salzmann 17 developed the handicapping
malocclusion assessment record (HMAR). The assessment
record forms and the definition of handicapping
malocclusion presented were officially approved by the
Council on Dental Health of the American Dental
Association, and the Board of Directors of the American
Association of Orthodontists.21
Salzmanns purpose of developing the HMAR was to
provide a means for establishing priority for treatment of
handicapping malocclusion. Handicapping malocclusion
and handicapping dentofacial deformity were defined as
conditions that constitute a hazard to the maintenance of
oral health and interfere with the well-being of the patient
by adversely affecting dentofacial esthetics, mandibular
function or speech. A cut-off point was set at a score so that
those patients whose scores were above the cut-off point
would be treated by the professional personnel available in
the community, at the same time keeping with the funds
budgeted for orthodontics.
The measurements were made according to the criteria,
and point values were assigned to them. The relative point
values, which were based on clinical orthodontic experience,
had been tested by orthodontists from various parts of the
United States. One important aspect of the HMAR is that it
records and weighs functional problems, which no other
index does.
Dental Esthetic Index
The dental esthetic index (DAI) was introduced by Cons in
1987, is based on socially defined esthetic norms. It takes
into consideration, the importance of psychosocial factors
in the assessment of malocclusion and it also assists
professionals in categorizing malocclusion according to
treatment needs.22 The relationship between dental esthetics
and psychological and social well-being has been noted by
many investigators. In response to the demand for an
orthodontic index that includes psychosocial criteria in
assessing need for orthodontic care and for use in
epidemiological surveys, led to the development of this
index.
The DAI is one such tool which the orthodontist can
make use of in identifying the orthodontic treatment need
of the child based on severity, and also provides a single
score linking the publics perceptions for dental esthetics
with objective measurements associated with malocclusion.
The DAI is particularly sensitive to occlusal conditions that
have the potential for causing psychological or social
dysfunction.
82
1.
2.
3.
4.
Advantages
1. The DAI considers patients perceptions regarding
orthodontic treatment, as it is the patients who receive
treatment and need to gain satisfaction from improved
esthetics and function.
2. DAI can be effectively used on a prospective basis to
identify the need for orthodontic treatment
quantitatively.
3. It can be used directly in the patients mouth.
4. Dental auxiliaries can be trained to use it to reduce cost
and burden on dentists.
5. Can be used to assess the treatment standards although
it was not developed for such use.
JAYPEE
WJD
An Overview of Orthodontic Indices
Esthetic Component
None
Variations in occlusion including displacement less than or equal to 1 mm.
Grade 2
Little
1. Increased overjet greater than 3.5 mm or less than 6 mm with lips competent at rest
2. Reverse overjet greater than 0 mm but less than or equal to 1 mm.
3. Increased overbite greater than 3.5 mm with no gingival contact.
4. Anterior or posterior crossbite with less than or equal to 1 mm displacement.
5. Small lateral or anterior open bites greater than 1 mm but less than or equal to 2 mm
6. Prenormal or postnormal occlusions with no other anomalies.
7. Mild displacement of teeth greater than 1 mm but less than or equal to 2 mm.
Grade 3
Moderate
1. Increased overjet greater than 3.5 mm but less than or equal to 6 mm with incompetent lips at rest.
2. Reverse overjet greater than 1 mm but less than or equal to 3.5 mm.
3. Increased and complete overbite greater than 3.5 mm with gingival contact but without indentations or signs of trauma.
4. Anterior or posterior crossbite with less than or equal to 2 mm but greater than 1 mm displacement between
retruded contact position and intercuspal position.
5. Moderate lateral or anterior open bite greater than 2 mm but less than or equal to 4 mm.
6. Moderate displacement of teeth greater than 2 mm but less than or equal to 4 mm.
Grade 4
Great
1. Increased overjet greater than 6 mm but less than or equal to 9 mm.
2. Reverse overjet greater than 3.5 mm with no reported masticatory or speech difficulties.
3. Reverse overjet greater than 1 mm but less than or equal to 3.5 mm with reported masticatory or speech difficulties.
4. Anterior or posterior crossbite with greater than 2 mm displacement between retruded contact position and
intercuspal position.
5. Posterior lingual crossbites with no occlusal contact in one or both buccal segment.
6. Severe displacement of teeth greater than 4 mm.
7. Extreme lateral or anterior open bite greater than 4 mm.
8. Increased and complete overbite causing notable indentations on the palate or labial gingivae.
9. Patient referred by colleague.
10. Less extensive hypodontia requiring prerestorative orthodontics or orthodontic space closure to obviate the need
for a prosthesis (Not more than 1 tooth missing in any quadrant).
Grade 5
Very great
1. Defects of cleft lip and/or palate.
2. Increased overjet greater than 9 mm
3. Reverse overjet greater than 3.5 mm with reported masticatory and speech difficulties.
4. Impeded eruption of teeth (with exception of 3rd molars) due to crowding, displacement, presence of
supernumerary teeth, retained deciduous teeth and any other pathological cause.
5. Extensive hypodontia with restorative implications (more than 1 tooth missing in any quadrant) requiring
prerestorative orthodontics.
83
84
JAYPEE
WJD
An Overview of Orthodontic Indices
85
86
29. Otuyemi OD, Noar JH. A comparison between DAI and scan in
estimating orthodontic treatment need. Int Dent J 1996;46:
35-40.
30. Beglin FM, Firestone AR, Vig KW, Beck FM. Comparison of
the reliability and validity of three occlusal indexes of
orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
2001;120:240-46.
31. Shivakumar K, Chandu. Prevalence of malocclusion and
orthodontic treatment need among middle and high school
children of Davangere city, India by using dental aesthetic index.
J Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
2009:27(4):211-18.
32. Hamamci Nihal. Dental aesthetic index scores and perception
of personal dental appearances among Turkish university
students. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:168-73.
Rinku Mathur
Assistant Professor, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive
Dentistry, Government Dental College and Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan
India
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Anirudh Agarwal, Professor and Head, Department of Orthodontics,
F-25, 4th Avenue, Lal Bahadur Nagar (West), JLN Marg, Jaipur-302018,
Rajasthan, India, Phone: 09414065588, e-mail:docanirudh@ yahoo.com
JAYPEE