HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Flores-Mir, C. Articles by Salazar, F. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Flores-Mir, C. Articles by Salazar, F. R.

Self-perceived orthodontic treatment need evaluated through 3 scales in a university population

University of Alberta

F. R. Salazar

Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia

Address for correspondence: Dr C. Flores-Mir, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry Room 4051A, Dentistry/Pharmacy Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2N8. Email: carlosflores{at}ualberta.ca

Objective: To evaluate the self-perceived orthodontic treatment need in a university population evaluated through 3 scales that used different approaches.

Design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: University dental clinic, Lima, Peru, 2001.

Materials and methods: Questionnaires that gathered perceptions on dentofacial aesthetic perception and orthodontic treatment need were applied to a randomly selected sample (329) of first year university students (729). Subjects undergoing orthodontic treatment at the time of examination were excluded.

Main outcome measures: Aesthetic component (AC) of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN), Oral Aesthetics Subjective Index Scale (OASIS) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) were used.

Statistical analysis: Descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation test, Kruskall–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney U-test were used.

Results: For the AC, 87.5% were in the ‘without treatment need’ category, 10.6% in the ‘borderline need’ category and 1.8% in the ‘treatment need’ category. The mean AC score was 3.02 (±1.49). The mean OASIS score was 11.81 (±4.84), and the VAS score was 40.16 (±18.16). Correlations between the 3 self-assessment scales were moderate (AC-OASIS 0.416, AC-VAS 0.541 and OASIS-VAS 0.457). Gender or previous orthodontic treatment had no influence (p<0.05) on the scales.

Conclusions: Differences in the approaches used by each scale to evaluate the self-perception of the aesthetical arrangement of the front teeth may explain the moderate correlation values.

Key words: Self-perceived orthodontic treatment need, IOTN, OASIS, VAS, university students