Orthodontic treatment of children/adolescents with special health care needs: an analysis of treatment length and clinical outcome

BMC Oral Health

Thomas Stamm²  Dirk Wiechmann¹  Ariane Hohoff²  Moritz Blanck-Lubarsch² 

[1] Department of Orthodontics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany;Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Muenster, Westphalian Wilhelms-University, Muenster, Germany

关键词: Aesthetic component (AC);    Index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN);    Peer assessment rating (PAR) index;    Success;    Treatment time;    Children/adolescents with special health care needs (SHCNs);    Orthodontic treatment;   

Others  :  1109657
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6831-14-67

 received in 2013-11-05, accepted in 2014-06-04,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse the treatment time and differences between the pre- and post-treatment peer assessment rating (PAR) index and aesthetic component (AC) of the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN) scores in children/adolescents with special health care needs (SHCNs), compared to non-special health care needs (NSHCNs) controls.

Methods

Based on certain inclusion and exclusion criteria, medical records of SHCNs and randomly selected NSHCNs controls at the Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital Muenster were analysed retrospectively for the treatment time, number of appointments, chair time (“moderate” or “considerable”), PAR scores, and AC scores. Sample size calculation, descriptive statistics, and explorative analyses were performed using the Mann–Whitney U Test.

Results

Twenty-nine children with SHCNs (21 boys, 9 girls; median age: 11 years, pre-treatment) and 29 children with NSHCNs (12 boys, 17 girls; median age: 12 years, pre-treatment) were enrolled in this study.

The overall treatment time did not differ between the patient groups. However, more “considerable chair time” was needed for the SHCNs group compared to the control group (p < 0.05), whereas “moderate chair time” was more often needed in patients with NSHCNs (p = 0.001).

The age of the patients at the first and last appointments showed significant statistical differences: children in the SHCNs group commenced orthodontic treatment earlier, by a median of 1 year, compared to children in the NSHCNs group.

The SHCNs group had significantly higher pre- and post-treatment PAR scores (median 21/median 6) and AC scores (median 9/median 3) compared to NSHCNs patients (PAR: median 17/median 0; AC: median 5/median 1).

However, the overall treatment time and the overall PAR and AC score reduction did not differ significantly between the SHCNs and NSHCNs groups.

Conclusions

While the overall treatment time and number of appointments did not differ, the overall chair time was higher in the SHCNs group. The pre- and post-treatment PAR and AC scores were significantly higher in the SHCNs group.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Blanck-Lubarsch et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Craniofacial abnormalities http://www.who.int/topics/craniofacial_abnormalities/en/ webcite
• [2]Bhushan V, Paneth N, Kiely JL: Impact of improved survival of very low birth weight infants on recent secular trends in the prevalence of cerebral palsy. Pediatrics 1993, 91(6):1094-1100.
• [3]Becker A, Shapira J, Chaushu S: Orthodontic treatment for disabled children: motivation, expectation, and satisfaction. Eur J Orthod 2000, 22(2):151-158.
• [4]Becker A, Shapira J: Orthodontics for the handicapped child. Eur J Orthod 1996, 18(1):55-67.
• [5]Hunt JA, Hobar PC: Common craniofacial anomalies: the facial dysostoses. Plast Reconstr Surg 2002, 110(7):1714-1725. quiz 1726; discussion 1727–1718
• [6]Shaw WC, Rees G, Dawe M, Charles CR: The influence of dentofacial appearance on the social attractiveness of young adults. Am J Orthod 1985, 87(1):21-26.
• [7]Shaw WC: The influence of children’s dentofacial appearance on their social attractiveness as judged by peers and lay adults. Am J Orthod 1981, 79(4):399-415.
• [8]Olsen JA, Inglehart MR: Malocclusions and perceptions of attractiveness, intelligence, and personality, and behavioral intentions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011, 140(5):669-679.
• [9]Cohen MM, Winer RA: Dental and facial characteristics in Down’s syndrome (mongolism). J Dent Res 1965, 44(SUPPL):197-208.
• [10]Franklin DL, Luther F, Curzon ME: The prevalence of malocclusion in children with cerebral palsy. Eur J Orthod 1996, 18(6):637-643.
• [11]Chaushu S, Becker A: Behaviour management needs for the orthodontic treatment of children with disabilities. Eur J Orthod 2000, 22(2):143-149.
• [12]Hobson RS, Nunn JH, Cozma I: Orthodontic management of orofacial problems in young people with impairments: review of the literature and case reports. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005, 15(5):355-363.
• [13]Becker A, Shapira J, Chaushu S: Orthodontic treatment for disabled children–a survey of patient and appliance management. J Orthod 2001, 28(1):39-44.
• [14]Shaw WC, Richmond S, O’Brien KD: The use of occlusal indices: a European perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995, 107(1):1-10.
• [15]Richmond S, Shaw WC, O’Brien KD, Buchanan IB, Jones R, Stephens CD, Roberts CT, Andrews M: The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992, 14(2):125-139.
• [16]Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M: The PAR index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992, 14(3):180-187.
• [17]Shaw WC, Richmond S, O’Brien KD, Brook P, Stephens CD: Quality control in orthodontics: indices of treatment need and treatment standards. Br Dent J 1991, 170(3):107-112.
• [18]Grzywacz I: The value of the aesthetic component of the index of orthodontic treatment need in the assessment of subjective orthodontic treatment need. Eur J Orthod 2003, 25(1):57-63.
• [19]Trulsson U, Klingberg G: Living with a child with a severe orofacial handicap: experiences from the perspectives of parents. Eur J Oral Sci 2003, 111(1):19-25.
• [20]Abanto J, Ciamponi AL, Francischini E, Murakami C, de Rezende NP, Gallottini M: Medical problems and oral care of patients with down syndrome: a literature review. Spec Care Dentist 2011, 31(6):197-203.
• [21]Brown BR, Inglehart MR: Orthodontists’ and orthodontic residents’ education in treating underserved patients: effects on professional attitudes and behavior. J Dent Educ 2009, 73(5):550-562.
• [22]Heffez L, Doku HC: The Goldenhar syndrome: diagnosis and early surgical management. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984, 58(1):2-9.
• [23]de Kleijn-de Vrankrijker MW: The long way from the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps (ICIDH) to the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Disabil Rehabil 2003, 25(11–12):561-564.
• [24]Brook PH, Shaw WC: The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989, 11(3):309-320.
• [25]Fox NA, Daniels C, Gilgrass T: 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 2002, 193(4):225-230.
• [26]Noether GE: Sample-size determination for some common nonparametric-tests. J Am Stat Assoc 1987, 82(398):645-647.
• [27]Brown BR, Inglehart MR: Orthodontic care for underserved patients: professional attitudes and behavior of orthodontic residents and orthodontists. Angle Orthod 2011, 81(6):1090-1096.
• [28]Firestone AR, Beck FM, Beglin FM, Vig KW: Evaluation of the peer assessment rating (PAR) index as an index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002, 122(5):463-469.
• [29]van der Linden FP: Genetic and environmental factors in dentofacial morphology. Am J Orthod 1966, 52(8):576-583.