J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 31, No. 4, 319-322, December 2004 doi:10.1179/146531204225202635
© 2004 British Orthodontic Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fox, N. A.
Right arrow Articles by Chapple, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fox, N. A.
Right arrow Articles by Chapple, J. R.

Article

Measuring failure of orthodontic treatment: a comparison of outcome indicators

N. A. Fox and J. R. Chapple

Orthodontic Department, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesborough, UK

Address for correspondence: N. A. Fox, Orthodontic Department, James Cook University Hospital, Marton Road, Middlesborough TS4 3BW, UK. Email: Nigel.A.Fox{at}btinternet.com

Objective: To compare treatment failure rates on a sample of completed and discontinued orthodontic treatment cases as measured by PAR, IOTN and ICON to determine whether the use of a sole index would suffice.

Subjects and method: All patients completing or discontinuing orthodontic treatment in the hospital orthodontic departments in the Northern Region during two calendar months were identified and pre and post-treatment models were analysed. PAR scores, IOTN (DHC and AC) and ICON were recorded.

Results: One-hundred-and-forty-five cases were identified and 15 had incomplete records on the day of analysis. The final sample was therefore 130. The overall treatment discontinuation rate of these 130 patients was 24.6%. The treatment failure rate with respect to occlusal improvement varied from 3.1% when measured by PAR and 10.0% using ICON. With respect to residual need it varied from 0.77 to 20.1% with respect to IOTN depending on the criteria examined. The residual treatment need with respect to ICON was 17.2%.

Conclusions: Different occlusal indices give differing failure rates when used on the same patients with ICON being the most critical index. We felt that ICON was the most valid with respect to identifying treatment failure. Its use would enable international comparison of results.

Key words: Occlusal indices, ICON, treatment outcomes






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 British Orthodontic Society.