Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

İÇ ANADOLU BÖLGESİ ORTODONTİK TEDAVİ İHTİYACININ ICON İNDEKSİ KULLANILARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

EVALUATION OF THE ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT NEED OF MIDDLE ANATOLIAN REGION USING BY ICON INDEX

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2012

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Aims: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the treatment needs of persons lived in Middle Anatolian area using by ICON index. Additionally, it is aimed to examine orthodontic treatment needs according to gender and pubertal period. Methods: In current study, orthodontic models and panoramic films of 154 patients (87 women, 67 men) with the age range of 9-38 years were investigated using by ICON index. Results: 90 (58,4%) of 154 patients had orthodontic treatment need, 49 patients (56,3%) of 87 female patients and 41 patients (61,2%) of 67 male patients had orthodontic treatment need. In addition, the numbers of patients had orthodontic treatment need were; 16 (43,2%) of 37 patients in prepubertal period, 62 (65,3%) of 95 patients in pubertal period and 12 (54,5%) of 22 patients in postpubertal period. Due to the aesthetic anxieties, female and patients in pubertal period had more appeal for orthodontic treatment than the other groups. Conclusion: As a result, there was no significant difference in the treatment needs between the groups of gender and pubertal period.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Amaçlar: Bu çalışmanın amacı, İç Anadolu bölgesinde yaşayan bireylerin, ortodontik tedavi ihtiyaçlarını ICON indeksi kullanarak değerlendirmek ve ortodontik tedavi ihtiyaçlarının cinsiyete ve pubertal büyüme dönemlerine göre değişip değişmediğini incelemektir. Yöntem: Mevcut çalışmada yaşları 9-38 arasında değişen 154 hastanın (87 kadın, 67 erkek) ortodontik modelleri ve panoramik filmleri ICON indeksi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular: 154 hastanın 90’ında (% 58,4) ortodontik tedavi ihtiyacının olduğu, 87 bayan hastanın 49’unda (% 56,3) ve 67 erkek hastanın ise 41’inde (% 61,2) ortodontik tedavi ihtiyacının olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, prepubertal dönemde olan 37 hastanın 16’sında (% 43,2), pubertal dönemde olan 95 hastanın 62’sinde (% 65,3) ve postpubertal dönemde olan 22 hastanın ise 12’sinde (% 54,5) ortodontik tedavi ihtiyacının olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Estetik kaygılarından dolayı, bayanların ve pubertal dönem içindeki hastaların ortodontik tedavi için daha fazla başvuruya sahip oldukları görülmüştür. Sonuç: Sonuç olarak, cinsiyetlerin ve pubertal büyüme dönem gruplarının tedavi ihtiyaçları arasında önemli farklılık bulunmamıştır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-ic-anadolu-bolgesi-ortodontik-tedavi-ihtiyacinin-icon-indeksi-kullanilarak-degerlendirilmesi.pdf
  • 2
150-154
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1.Ertaş EB. ‘IOTN’ ve ‘PAR’ İndeksine Göre
Türkiye’deki Ortodontik Tedavi Standardının
Değerlendirilmesi, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Sağlık
Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı,
Uzmanlık Tezi, Konya, 1996.
2. Jarvinen S. Indexes for orthodontic treatment need.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:237-
239.
3.Kazancı F. Farklı Maloklüzyon Gruplarında Ortodontik
Tedavi İhtiyacının Belirlenmesi, Atatürk
Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ortodonti
Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi, Erzurum, 2010.
4. Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the
index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). J
Orthod 2000;27:149-162.
5. Ngom PI, Brown R, Diagne F, Normand F,
Richmond S. A cultural comparison of treatment
need. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:597-600.
6. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index
of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod
1989;11:309-320.
7. Savastano NJ, Jr., Firestone AR, Beck FM, Vig KW.
Validation of the complexity and treatment
outcome components of the index of complexity,
outcome, and need (ICON). Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:244-248.
8. Onyeaso CO. An assessment of relationship
between self-esteem, orthodontic concern, and
Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) scores among
Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. KAMAK, ÇAĞLAROĞLU,
J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni ÇATALBAŞ, KEKLİK
Cilt:22, Sayı: 2, Yıl: 2012, Sayfa: 149-153
153
secondary school students in Ibadan, Nigeria. Int
Dent J 2003;53:79-84.
9. Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. Relationship between
index of complexity, outcome and need, dental
aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and
American Board of Orthodontics objective grading
system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2007;131:248-252.
10. Dyken RA, Sadowsky PL, Hurst D. Orthodontic
outcomes assessment using the peer assessment
rating index. Angle Orthod 2001;71:164-169.
11. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Stephens CD, Webb WG,
Roberts CT, Andrews M. Orthodontics in the
general dental service of England and Wales: a
critical assessment of standards. Br Dent J
1993;174:315-329.
12. Richmond S, Andrews M. Orthodontic treatment
standards in Norway. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:7-15.
13. Turbill EA, Richmond S, Wright JL. A closer look at
General Dental Service orthodontics in England
and Wales. I: Factors influencing effectiveness. Br
Dent J 1999;187:211-216.
14. Turbill EA, Richmond S, Wright JL. A critical
assessment of orthodontic standards in England
and Wales (1990-1991) in relation to changes in
prior approval. Br J Orthod 1996;23:221-228.
15. Richmond S, Aylott NA, Panahei ME, Rolfe B,
Tausche E. A 2-center comparison of orthodontist's
perceptions of orthodontic treatment difficulty.
Angle Orthod 2001;71:404-410.
16. Richmond S, Ikonomou C, Williams B, Ramel S,
Rolfe B, Kurol J. Orthodontic treatment standards
in a public group practice in Sweden. Swed Dent J
2001;25:137-144.
17. Richmond S, Ikonomou C, Williams B, Rolfe B.
Orthodontic treatment standards in Greece. Hell
Orthod Rev 2001;4:9-20.
18. Yüceyaltırık GK. Ortodontik Tedavi Başarısının PAR
İndeksi ve Sefalometrik Analiz ile Değerlendirilmesi,
İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri
Enstitüsü, Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı, Doktora Tezi,
İstanbul, 2005.
19. Kamak H. ICON İndeksi Kullanılarak Tedavi
Sonucunun Kabul Edilebilirliğinin, Tedavi
Zorluğunun ve Tedavinin İyileşme Derecesinin
Değerlendirilmesi, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Sağlık
Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı,
Doktora Tezi, Erzurum, 2010.
20. Richmond S, O’Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Burden DJ.
An introduction to occlusal indices, booklet.
Victoria University of Mancester, England, 1992.
21. Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic
measurements. Am J Orthod 1983;83:382-390.
22. 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
Orthod Rev 2006;9:23-34.
23. Hassan AH. Orthodontic treatment needs in the
western region of Saudi Arabia: a research report.
Head Face Med 2006;2:2.
24. Ucuncu N, Ertugay E. The use of the Index of
Orthodontic Treatment need (IOTN) in a school
population and referred population. J Orthod
2001;28:45-52.
25. Güray E, Orhan M, Ertaş E, Doruk C. Konya yöresi
ilkokul çocuklarında "Treatment Priority Index"
(TPI) uygulaması (epidemiyolojik çalışma). Türk
Ortodonti Dergisi 1994;7:195-200.
26. Burden DJ, Mitropoulos CM, Shaw WC. Residual
orthodontic treatment need in a sample of 15- and
16-year-olds. Br Dent J 1994;176:220-224.
27. Hamamci N, Basaran G, Uysal E. Dental Aesthetic
Index scores and perception of personal dental
apperance among Turkish university students. Eur
J Orthod 2009;31:168-173.
28. Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, Richmond S. Quality control
in orthodontics: factors influencing the receipt of
orthodontic treatment. Br Dent J 1991;170:66-68.
29. Gravely JF. A study of need and demand for
orthodontic treatment in two contrasting National
Health Service regions. Br J Orthod 1990;17:287-
292.
30. Pietila T, Pietila I. Dental appearance and
orthodontic services assessed by 15-16-year-old
adolescents in eastern Finland. Community Dent
Health 1996;13:139-144.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com