The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment of Severity of Malocclusion and Orthodontic Treatment Need Using the Dental Esthetic Index and Angle's Classification: A Retrospective Study

Anwar Alhazmi, Mesfer Alshehri, Abdullah Alrefai, Omar Alattas, Fatimah Arif, Salwa Hakami, Rawan Dowiry

Keywords : Angle\'s classification, Dental esthetic index, Malocclusion, Orthodontics

Citation Information : Alhazmi A, Alshehri M, Alrefai A, Alattas O, Arif F, Hakami S, Dowiry R. Assessment of Severity of Malocclusion and Orthodontic Treatment Need Using the Dental Esthetic Index and Angle's Classification: A Retrospective Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (10):1167-1170.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3193

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-02-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: Angle's classification is the most widely used instrument for evaluation of malocclusion. The dental esthetic index (DAI) is a reliable, valid, and universally accepted cross-cultural index adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO) that links objective, clinical, and subjective esthetic factors to produce a single score that reflects the severity and the treatment needs of the malocclusion. The present study aims to evaluate Angle's classification and DAI to assess the severity of malocclusion and treatment needs. Materials and methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study was done on pretreatment orthodontics records of 145 male patients and 153 female patients in the age-group 9–42 years with malocclusion who had received or were undergoing orthodontic treatment in the orthodontic department clinics of the College of Dentistry, Jazan University. Preorthodontic study casts, orthopantomography, and lateral cephalometric X-rays were analyzed. DAI scores were calculated, and treatment needs were assessed. Angle's classification of malocclusion was also noted. Results: Among patients with normal or minor malocclusion (DAI score ≤25), a significantly higher percentage of patients were class I (58%) than any other class of malocclusion. Among patients determined to have handicapping malocclusion (DAI score ≥36), significantly higher percentage of patients were class II/1 (44%) than any other class of malocclusion. Class II/1 showed the highest percentage of definite (24%) (DAI score 26–30), severe (19%) (DAI score 31–35), and handicapping malocclusions (44%) (DAI score ≥36). A total of 26% of patients had skeletal class I. A total of 38% of patients had skeletal class II. A total of 36% of patients had skeletal class III. Approximately 13% of patients had maxillary canine impactions and 3% of patients had mandibular canine impactions. Conclusion: The study reported 35% of patients were having handicapping malocclusion (DAI ≥36) and 14% having severe malocclusion (DAI score 31–35). The malocclusion was characterized by a high frequency of anterior crowding. Thus, the complementary use of DAI and Angle's classification, with improvements, helps establish an all-inclusive criterion for screening and prioritizing of patients eligible for receiving subsidized, publicly funded orthodontic care and thus allows better use of limited available resources.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Uzuner FD, Kaygısız E, Taner L, et al. Angle's Classification versus Dental Esthetic Index in evaluation of malocclusion among Turkish orthodontic patients. J Dent App 2015;2(3):168–173.
  2. Mtaya M, Astrom AN, Brudvik P. Malocclusion, psycho-social impacts and treatment need: a cross-sectional study of Tanzanian primary school-children. BMC Oral Health 2008;8(1):14. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-8-14.
  3. Nagalakshmi S, James S, Rahila C, et al. Assessment of malocclusion severity and orthodontic treatment needs in 12–15-year-old school children of Namakkal District, Tamil Nadu, using Dental Esthetic Index. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2017;35(3):188–192. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_280_16.
  4. Angle E. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos 1899;41(3): 248–264.
  5. Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, et al. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: a systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod 2018;23(6):40.e1–10. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl.
  6. Rinchuse DJ, Rinchuse DJ. Ambiguities of Angle's classification. Angle Orthod 1989;59(4):295–298. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219 (1989)059<0295:AOAC>2.0.CO;2.
  7. World Health Organization. Oral health surveys: basic methods. 4th ed. Geneva: WHO; 1997. p. 47–52.
  8. Cons NC, Jenny J, Kohout FJ. DAI: The Dental Esthetic Index. Iowa City: College of Dentistry, University of Iowa; 1986.
  9. Goyal S, Goyal S, Muhigana A. Assessment of malocclusion severity levels and orthodontic treatment needs using the Dental Esthetic Index (DAI): a retrospective study. RMJ 2013;70(3):20–27.
  10. Jenny J, Cons NC. Establishing malocclusion severity levels on the Dental Esthetic Index (DAI) scale. Aust Dent J 1996;41(1):43–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1996.tb05654.x.
  11. Gelgör IE, Karaman AI, Ercan E. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in central anatolia. Eur J Dent 2007;1(3):125–131. PMID: 19212555; PMCID: PMC2638238.
  12. Garbin JI, Perin PCP, GarbinCaS, et al. Malocclusion prevalence and comparison between the Angle classification and the Dental Esthetic Index in scholars in the interior of São Paulo state – Brazil. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15(4):94–102. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512010000400014.
  13. Onyeaso CO. Prevalence of malocclusion among adolescents in Ibadan, Nigeria. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126(5):604–607. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.07.012.
  14. Silva RG, Kang DS. Prevalence of malocclusion among Latino adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119(3):313–315. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.110985.
  15. Abdullah MS, Rock WP. Assessment of orthodontic treatment need in 5,112 Malaysian children using the IOTN and DAI indices. Community Dent Health 2001;18(4):242–248. PMID: 11789703.
  16. Borzabadi-Farahani A, Eslamipour F, Asgari I. A comparison of two orthodontic esthetic indices. Aust Orthod J 2012;28(1):30–36. PMID: 22866591.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.