Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

Open Access 01-01-2023 | Original Article

Comparison of orthodontic treatment need and malocclusion prevalence according to KIG, ICON, and mIOTN in German 8- to 9-year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6)

Authors: PD Dr. Dr. Christian Kirschneck, Kathrin Kuhr, Cristiana Ohm, Nicolas Frenzel Baudisch, Andreas Rainer Jordan

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Special Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to compare the malocclusion indices KIG (Kieferorthopädische Indikationsgruppen, Orthodontic Indication Groups), ICON (Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need), and mIOTN (modified Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need) regarding differences in malocclusion prevalence and their assessment of orthodontic treatment need in German 8‑ to 9‑year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie, DMS 6).

Methods

The necessary data for the calculation of the KIG, mIOTN, and ICON were collected by a dentist as part of a clinical orthodontic examination during the field phase of the DMS 6 and by a subsequent digital orthodontic model–analytical evaluation of intraoral scans of the dental arches and the occlusal situation in habitual occlusion.

Results

Prevalence, severity, and treatment need of tooth and jaw misalignments differed in part considerably depending on the index used for assessment. On the other hand, there were several outcomes which yielded quite similar results for the different indices used, such as orthodontic treatment need, which ranged from 40.4% (KIG) over 41.6% (ICON) to 44.2% (mIOTN). Interestingly, orthodontic treatment need for the individual subject could differ considerably, when assessed using different indices.

Conclusions

In general, the results show that the mIOTN is much more conservative in assessing malocclusion prevalences often being smaller than those derived by KIG or ICON. In contrast, KIG and ICON often yield similar prevalences with certain distinct differences due to discrepancies in the respective definitions and also clearly differentiate between treatment possibility and arbitrarily determined treatment need.

(2003) Richtlinien des Bundesausschusses der Zahnärzte und Krankenkassen für die kieferorthopädische Behandlung in der Fassung vom 04. Juni 2003 und vom 24. September 2003 veröffentlicht im Bundesanzeiger Nr. 226 (S. 24 966) vom 03. Dezember 2003in Kraft getreten am 1. Januar 2004

Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS et al (2018) Global distribution of malocclusion traits: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 23(6):40.e1–40.e10. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onlCrossRef

Breistein B, Burden DJ (1998) Equity and orthodontic treatment: a study among adolescents in Northern Ireland. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 113(4):408–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(98)80012-7CrossRef

Brook PH, Shaw WC (1989) The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 11(3):309–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035999CrossRef

Burden DJ, Holmes A (1994) The need for orthodontic treatment in the child population of the United Kingdom. Eur J Orthod 16(5):395–399. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/16.5.395CrossRef

Burden DJ, Pine CM, Burnside G (2001) Modified IOTN: an orthodontic treatment need index for use in oral health surveys. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 29(3):220–225. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0528.2001.290308.xCrossRef

Daniels C, Richmond S (2000) The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). J Orthod 27(2):149–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/27.2.149CrossRef

Firestone AR, Beck FM, Beglin FM et al (2002) Validity of the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) in determining orthodontic treatment need. Angle Orthod 72(1):15–20. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072%3C0015:VOTIOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Fox NA, Daniels C, Gilgrass T (2002) A comparison of the index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) with the peer assessment rating (PAR) and the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN). Br Dent J 193(4):225–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4801530CrossRef

10.

Jordan AR, Kuhr K, Ohm C, Frenzel Baudisch N (2023) Methodology of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6) to survey tooth and jaw misalignment. J Orofac. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-022-00436-0CrossRef

11.

Kirschneck C, Proff P (2017) Indizes zur objektiven Beurteilung des Behandlungsergebnisses. In: Ihlow D, Rudzki I (eds) Kieferorthopädische Retention, 1st edn. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 110–111; 124–127

12.

Kirschneck C, Proff P, Lux C (2021) S3-Leitlinie “Ideale Behandlungszeitpunkte kieferorthopädischer Anomalien”. Registernummer 083 - 038. https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/083-038.html. Accessed 12 Dec 2022

13.

Micheelis W, Bauch J (1991) Mundgesundheitszustand und -verhalten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Ergebnisse des nationalen IDZ-Survey 1989. IDZ-Materialienreihe, Bd. 11.1. Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag, Köln

14.

NHS Dental Epidemiology Programme Oral Health Survey of 12 year old children in England 2008 / 2009—National protocol. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/774028/Oral_Survey_Protocol_for_12_year_olds_2008.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2022

15.

Ruf S, Proff P, Lisson J (2021) Zahn- und Kieferfehlstellungen – gesundheitliche Relevanz und Behandlung (Health relevance of malocclusions and their treatment). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 64(8):918–923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-021-03372-3CrossRef

16.

Savastano NJ, Firestone AR, Beck FM et al (2003) Validation of the complexity and treatment outcome components of the index of complexity, outcome, and need (ICON). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124(3):244–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00399-8CrossRef

17.

Schopf P (2013) Kieferorthopädische Abrechnung. BEMA KIG GOZ 2012GOÄ, 2nd edn. Quintessenz, Berlin

18.

Sepp H, Saag M, Svedström-Oristo A‑L et al (2017) Occlusal traits and orthodontic treatment need in 7‑ to 10-year-olds in Estonia. Clin Exp Dent Res 3(3):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.64CrossRef

19.

Stahl F, Grabowski R, Gaebel M et al (2007) Relationship between occlusal findings and orofacial myofunctional status in primary and mixed dentition. Part II: Prevalence of orofacial dysfunctions. J Orofac Orthop 68(2):74–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-007-2606-9CrossRef

20.

Vidaković R, Špalj S, Šlaj M et al (2018) Correlation between the DAI and ICON Indices used for Assessment of Orthodontic Treatment need in Croatian. Sch Zdr Varst 57(4):218–226. https://doi.org/10.2478/sjph-2018-0027CrossRef

Title: Comparison of orthodontic treatment need and malocclusion prevalence according to KIG, ICON, and mIOTN in German 8- to 9-year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6)
Authors: PD Dr. Dr. Christian Kirschneck
Kathrin Kuhr
Cristiana Ohm
Nicolas Frenzel Baudisch
Andreas Rainer Jordan
Publication date: 01-01-2023
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue Special Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00446-6

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of orthodontic treatment need and malocclusion prevalence according to KIG, ICON, and mIOTN in German 8- to 9-year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content