medigraphic.com
ISSN 1870-199X (Impreso)
Órgano oficial de la Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

2011, Número 2

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Rev Odont Mex 2011; 15 (2)


Propuesta de un índice de maloclusiones invalidantes con potencial de deterioro y su aplicación

Elizondo DR, Yudovich BM, Aguilar SM, Meléndez OA

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 79
Paginas: 77-95
Archivo PDF: 389.31 Kb.


RESUMEN

La necesidad existente en salud pública para la selección de pacientes que ameriten atención ortodóncica de 2º y 3er. nivel hospitalario ha llevado a varios autores a idear índices que determinen problemas oclusales de orígenes distintos al dental, sin embargo ninguno mide confiablemente las anomalías craneofaciodentales que son prioritarias a nivel institucional por su trascendencia, magnitud y severidad. Para este trabajo se determinaron las alteraciones craneofaciodentales más frecuentes de pacientes que recibieron tratamiento en el Departamento de Ortodoncia del Hospital General «Dr. Manuel Gea González» en 1996 y se realizó un formato al que se le anexaron nuevas variables dándoles a todas valores nominales y ordinales cuya sumatoria final sugiere el nivel de posibilidad y de necesidad de tratamiento ortodóncico hospitalario; a este formato se le dio el nombre de «Índice de maloclusiones invalidantes con potencial de deterioro» y fue aplicado a 80 pacientes que acudieron a solicitar servicio al mismo. La menor puntuación la obtuvo una paciente totalmente edéntula con disfunción mientras que la mayor puntuación fue para una paciente con diagnóstico de fisuras faciales múltiples, es decir que según la clasificación y de acuerdo al puntaje propuesto en este trabajo la paciente de fisuras múltiples entra directamente a un programa de atención ortodóncica hospitalaria, y la edéntula no requiere de este servicio.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Cuenca E. Manual de Odontología Preventiva y Comunitaria. Masson S.A., Barcelona, 1991.

  2. Chávez M. Odontología Sanitaria. OMS-OPS, 1984.

  3. Wilkins ME. Clinical practice of the dental hygienist. 6th Ed. 1981.

  4. Klein H, Palmer CE, Knutson JW. Studies on dental caries. I. Dental status and dental needs of elementary school children. Pub Health Rep (Wash) 1938; 53: 751-65.

  5. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Investigación de la Salud Oral Trillas, UNAM, 1990: 40-42.

  6. Hellman M. Factors influencing occlusion. Angle Orthod 1942: XII(1).

  7. Noyes HJ. Classification of malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1942: XII(1).

  8. McNamara Jr. The biology of occlusal development. Monograph Number 7, Craniofacial Growth Series, Center for Human Growth and Development. The University of Michigan. Ann Arbor Michigan 1997: 89-111.

  9. Angle. Treatment of malocclusion of the tooth. 1907.

  10. Shaw WC, Richmond S, O´Brien KD. The use of occlusal indices: A european perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 107: 1-10.

  11. Järvinen S. Indexes for orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 237-9.

  12. Han H, Davidson WM. A useful insight into 2 occlusal indexes: HLD (Md) and HLD (CalMod). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 247-53.

  13. Tang ELK, Wei SHY. Assessing treatment effectiveness or removable and fixed orthodontic appliances with the occlusal index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 99: 550-6.

  14. Pruzansky S. Not all Dwarfed mandibles are alike. Birth Defects 1(2): 120-129.

  15. Vento AR, LaBrie RA, Mulliken JB. The OMENS classification of hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate J 1991; 28: 68-78.

  16. Tessier P. Anatomical classification of facial, cranio-facial and clefts. J Maxillofac Surg 1976; 4: 69-92.

  17. van der Meulen JC, Mazzola R, Vermey-Keers C. A morphological classification of craniofacial malformations. Plast Reconstr Surg 1983; 71 (4): 560-72.

  18. Rodgers SF, Eppley BL, Nelson CL. Hemifacial microsomia: assessment of classification systems. J Craniofac Surg 1991; 2(3): 114-26.

  19. Horgan JE, Padwa BL, LaBrie RA, Mulliken JB. OMENS-Plus: Analysis of craniofacial and extracraniofacial anomalies in hemifacial microsomia. Cleft Palate J 1995; 32 (5): 405-12.

  20. Park S, Ock JJ. A new classification of palatal fracture and an algorithm to establish a treatment plan. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107 (7): 1669-76.

  21. Yudovich M. Criterio de aceptación de pacientes al Departamento de Ortodoncia del Hospital General «Dr. Manuel Gea González». Índice de maloclusiones invalidantes con potencial de deterioro y cuadros de información diagnóstica. Manual Interno del Dpto. de Ortodoncia, Hosp. Gral. Dr. Manuel Gea González; México, D.F. 1978.

  22. Yudovich M. Diagnóstico y manejo ortodóncico de condiciones invalidantes dentofaciales. 1984.

  23. Yudovich M. Maloclusiones invalidantes con potencial de deterioro. Manual interno del Dpto. de Ortodoncia, Hosp. Gral. «Dr. Manuel Gea González»; México, D.F. 1995.

  24. Mutchinick O, Lisker R, Babinsky V. Programa Mexicano de «Registro y vigilancia epidemiológica de malformaciones congénitas externas». Salud Pública Mex 1988; 30: 88-100.

  25. Cohen Jr MM, Kreiborg S. Birth prevalence studies of the Crouzon syndrome: comparison of direct and indirect methods. Clin Genet 1992; 41: 12-15.

  26. Saavedra D, Torres M. Malformaciones congénitas de etiología multifactorial. Genética Clínica 2ª Ed. Manual Moderno, México, 1994.

  27. Yudovich M, Ramírez MG, Delgado G. Tratamiento ortopédico para la corrección vertical de la premaxila en niños preescolares con secuela de labio y paladar hendido bilateral. Rev Iberoamer de Ortod 1997; 16 (1): 18-24.

  28. Draker HL. Handicapping labio-lingual deviations: a proposed index for public health purposes. Am J Orthod 1960; 46 (4): 295-305.

  29. Grainger RM. Orthodontic treatment priority index. In: Public Health Service Publication No 1000, Series 2, No 25. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office; 1967.

  30. Slakter MJ, Albino JE, Green LJ, Lewis EA. Validity of an orthodontic treatment priority index to measure need for treatment. Am J Orthod 1980; 78 (4): 421-25.

  31. Salzmann JA. Handicapping malocclusion assessment to establish treatment priority. Am J Orthod 1968; 54 (10): 749-68.

  32. Salzmann JA. Treatment priority index of malocclusion. Intern Dent J 1970; 20: 610-32.

  33. Summers CJ. The oclusal index: a system for identifying and scoring occlusal disorders. Am J Orthod 1971; (6): 552-67.

  34. Kinaan BK, Burke PH. Quantitative assessment of the occlusal features. Br J Orthod 1981; 8: 149-56.

  35. Tenenbaum M, Morales M, Goto C. Índices cuantitativos para determinar la anomalía Ortodóncica y evaluar su necesidad y prioridad de tratamiento. Rev Iberoamer de Ortod 1984; 4 (1): 21-36.

  36. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod 1989; 11: 309-20.

  37. Üçüncü N, Ertugay E. The use of the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN) in a school population and referred population. J Orthod 2001; 28: 45-52.

  38. Mattick CR, Gordon PH, Gillgrass TJ. Smile aesthetics and malocclusion in UK teenage magazines assessed using the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN). J Orthod 2004; 31: 17-19.

  39. Kok YV, Mageson P, Harradine NWT, Sprod AJ. Comparing a quality of life measure and the aesthetic component of the index of orthodontic treatment need and concern. J Orthod 2004; 31: 312-18.

  40. 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 Ortod 1992; 14: 125-39.

  41. 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 Ortod 1992; 14: 180-87.

  42. DeGuzman L. The validation of the peer assessment rating index for malocclusion severity and treatment difficultly. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995; 107: 172-6.

  43. Green J, O´Brien K. The influence of the setting of «cut-off» points for orthodontic treatment need upon the reliability of the index of orthodontic treatment need. Br J Orthod 1994; 21: 287-89.

  44. Knorr JN, Hoopes JE. Psychiatric-surgical approach to adolescent disturbance in self image. Plast Reconstr Surg 1968; 41: 248-53.

  45. Lefebvre A, Munro I. The role of psychiatry in a craniofacial team. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 61: 564-69.

  46. Phillips J, Whitaker LA. The social effects of craniofacial deformity and its correction. Cleft Palate J 1979; 16: 7-15.

  47. Pertschuk MJ, Whitaker LA. Psychosocial adjustment and craniofacial malformations in childhood. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985; 75(2): 177-184.

  48. Harrison AM. Discussion of psychosocial adjustment and craniofacial malformations in childhood. Plast Reconstr Surg 1985; 75: 183-84.

  49. Whitaker LA, Bartlett SP. The craniofacial Dysostoses: Guidelines for management of the symmetric and deformities. Clin Plast Surg 1987; 14: 73-81.

  50. Pillemer FC, Cook KV. After surgery: the psychosocial adjustment of pediatric craniofacial patients. Cleft Palate J 1989; 26: 201-07.

  51. Padwa BL, Evans CA, Pillemer FC. Psychosocial adjustment in children with hemifacial microsomia and other craniofacial deformities. Cleft Palate J 1991; 28 (4): 354-59.

  52. Salier HF, Kolb E. Influence of craniofacial surgery on the social attitudes toward the malformed and their handling in different cultures and at different times: a contribution to social world history. J Craniofac Surg 1995; 6 (4): 314-26.

  53. Mouradian WE. Who decides? Patients, or gatekeepers: pediatric decisions in the craniofacial setting. Cleft Palate J 1995; 32: 510-14.

  54. Birkeland K. Orthodontic concern among 11-year-old children and their parents compared with orthodontic treatment need assessed by index of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 110: 197-205.

  55. Ravaglia C. Aspectos psico-clínicos para la atención odontológica de los pacientes con discapacidad. 22/09/2001 webodontologica.com

  56. Motegi E et al. Health-related quality of life and psychosocial function 5 years after orthognathic surgery. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003; 124: 138-43.

  57. Gramling JF. The probability index. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995; 107: 165-71.

  58. Jenny J, Cons NC. Comparing and contrasting two orthodontic indices, the index of orthodontic treatment need and the dental aesthetic index. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 110: 410-6.

  59. Parker WS. The HLD (CalMod) index and the index question. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 114: 134-41.

  60. Parker WS. A study of 1,000 malocclusion selected by the HLD (CalMod) index. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999; 115: 343-51.

  61. Parker WS. Useful data from application of the HLD (CalMod) index. Short communication. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000; 117: 435-37.

  62. Beglin FM. A comparison of the reliability and validity of 3 occlusal indexes of orthodontic treatment need. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 120: 240-6.

  63. Han H, Davidson WM. A useful insight into 2 occlusal indexes: HLD(Md) and HLD(CalMod). Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 247-53.

  64. Casko J, Vaden L, Kokich VG. American Board of Orthodontics: Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 589-99.

  65. Abei Y, Nelson S, Amberman B, Hans M. Comparing orthodontic treatment outcome between orthodontists and general dentists with the ABO index. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 544-48.

  66. Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the index of complexity, outcome and need (ICON). Br J Orthod 2000; 27: 149-62.

  67. Pae E. Role of lateral cephalograms in assessing severity and difficultly of orthodontic cases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 120: 254-62.

  68. Weerakone S, Dhopatkar A. Clinical outcome monitoring program (COMP): a new application for use in orthodontic audits and research. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 503-11.

  69. Pruzansky S. The challenge and opportunity in craniofacial anomalies. Cleft Palate J 1971; 8: 239-50.

  70. Ortíz-Monasterio F. La integración y el adiestramiento de un equipo multidisciplinario para cirugía craneofacial. Separata de La Prensa Médica Mexicana 1974; XXXIX: 183-88.

  71. Vig KWL. Orthodontic considerations applied to craniofacial dysmorphology. Cleft Palate J 1990; 27: 141-45.

  72. Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies. Supplement to Cleft Palate Craniofacial J 1993; 30: S2-S15.

  73. Moss ML. The functional matrix. In: Kraus B, Reidel R editors. Vistas in orthodontics. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1962:85-98.

  74. Moss ML, Salentijn L. The primary role of the functional matrices in facial growth. Am J Orthod 1969; 55: 566-77.

  75. Moss ML. The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 1. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997.

  76. Moss ML. The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 2. The role of an osseous connected cellular network. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; 112: 221-6.

  77. Moss ML. The functional matrix hypothesis revisited. 3. The genomic thesis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; 112: 338-42.

  78. Epker BN, Stella JP, Fish LC. Dentofacial deformities. 2nd Ed. Mosby. 1995: I.

  79. American Association of Orthodontists. Excerpts from American association of orthodontists clinical practice guidelines for orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics 1996. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 111: 443-449.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com