Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,952 studies31 sourcesUpdated 52 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYActa odontologica Scandinavica

A comparison and evaluation of the use of three orthodontic indices in assessing the treatment outcome.

  • Rayed Aldausari1
  • Maryam Al-Zayer2
  • Marie Pegelow3
  1. 1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Department of Dental Medicine, Division of Orthodontics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
  2. 2Department of Dental Medicine, Division of Orthodontics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Orthodontist, Dr. Zaki Dental Clinics, Al-Qatif, Saudi Arabia.
  3. 3Department of Dental Medicine, Division of Orthodontics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. [email protected].
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

Objective

To assess the differences in treatment outcome evaluation using the Dental Health Component (DHC) and Aesthetic Component (AC) of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN), the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON), and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR), and to examine scoring agreement between orthodontic residents and undergraduate students.Material and methods

A total of 87 study casts were assessed using the IOTN, ICON, and PAR indices to evaluate treatment outcome, with intra- and inter-examiner reliability examined.Results

High to very high correlation was observed among AC, ICON, and PAR at T1 (p < 0.0001), while at T2, a high correlation was found between ICON and AC (p < 0.0001). Low correlations were found between DHC and both PAR and ICON. A negligible correlation was found between AC and DHC at T2. IOTN components showed good reproducibility at T1, whereas DHC, ICON, and PAR demonstrated moderate reliability at T2. Among orthodontic residents, ICON showed moderate (T1) and good (T2) reliability. PAR showed excellent reliability at T1. Among all examiners, all indices had moderate reliability at T1, and both ICON and PAR had poor reliability at T2.Conclusions

ICON was the most reliable index among orthodontic residents and required less scoring time than PAR, although IOTN remained the quickest to apply.

Related

  1. Assessing the sagittal soft-to-hard tissue change of craniofacial morphology after orthodontic or orthognathic treatment.
    Zixin Yan, Yue Xu, Ye Cao +6
    BMC oral healthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textEurope PMCPMC
  2. Evaluation of Awareness of the Need for Orthodontic Treatment Across Different Age Groups in Adolescents and Young Adults.
    Mevlüde Yüce Polat, Mahmut Tankuş, Başak Akdağ
    Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textEurope PMC
  3. A Comparative Evaluation of the Effects of Three Different Mouthwashes on Salivary pH in Patients Undergoing Fixed Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Sruthi Jeevagan, Sathi Rami Reddy Mora, Mohamed Rahmankhan N +3
    CureusPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  4. Comparison of Sleep Quality Across Different Sagittal Skeletal Patterns in Orthodontic Patients
    Chanistha Sirichan, Narissaporn Chaiprakit, Siripatra Patchanee
    Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textEurope PMC
  5. Comparison of anterior middle superior alveolar (AMSA) injection and buccal infiltration as single-injection anesthetic techniques for orthodontic extraction of maxillary first premolars: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial
    Abdul Ahad, Ali Asger Nakib, Manjula Marandi +2
    Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicinePeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{aldausari2026comparison,
  title = {{A comparison and evaluation of the use of three orthodontic indices in assessing the treatment outcome.}},
  author = {Rayed Aldausari and Maryam Al-Zayer and Marie Pegelow},
  journal = {Acta odontologica Scandinavica},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.2340/aos.v85.46998},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42878228},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - A comparison and evaluation of the use of three orthodontic indices in assessing the treatment outcome.
AU  - Rayed Aldausari
AU  - Maryam Al-Zayer
AU  - Marie Pegelow
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/15
JO  - Acta odontologica Scandinavica
DO  - 10.2340/aos.v85.46998
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42878228
AB  - Objective  To assess the differences in treatment outcome evaluation using the Dental Health Component (DHC) and Aesthetic Component (AC) of the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN), the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON), and the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR), and to examine scoring agreement between orthodontic residents and undergraduate students.Material and methods  A total of 87 study casts were assessed using the IOTN, ICON, and PAR indices to evaluate treatment outcome, with intra- and inter-examiner reliability examined.Results  High to very high correlation was observed among AC, ICON, and PAR at T1 (p < 0.0001), while at T2, a high correlation was found between ICON and AC (p < 0.0001). Low correlations were found between DHC and both PAR and ICON. A negligible correlation was found between AC and DHC at T2. IOTN components showed good reproducibility at T1, whereas DHC, ICON, and PAR demonstrated moderate reliability at T2. Among orthodontic residents, ICON showed moderate (T1) and good (T2) reliability. PAR showed excellent reliability at T1. Among all examiners, all indices had moderate reliability at T1, and both ICON and PAR had poor reliability at T2.Conclusions  ICON was the most reliable index among orthodontic residents and required less scoring time than PAR, although IOTN remained the quickest to apply.
SN  - 0001-6357
SN  - 1502-3850
ER  -