Methodology of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6) to survey tooth and jaw misalignment.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was (1) to complete and update the oral-epidemiological data situation in Germany (descriptive epidemiology) and (2) to determine the need for orthodontic treatment provision based on the epidemiological data situation (health care epidemiology in the form of demand research). METHODS: For this purpose, a longitudinal oral-epidemiological study and social science survey with a primary focus on tooth and jaw misalignment was conducted at a nationally representative level on 705 8­ and 9­year-old children across Germany. RESULTS: The methodological principles of the oral-epidemiological study are described, with a focus on the calibration and reliability assessment results from the study dentists, sample weighting, a survey of nonrespondents to estimate the extent of the external validity of the study results, a description of the study participants, and realized cases, as well as information pertaining to the response rate and utilization. CONCLUSION: Based on the conducted analyses, it can be assumed that the examined 8­ and 9­year-old study participants are representative of the statistical population in Germany.

Does orthodontic treatment need have an impact on oral health-related quality of life?

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine the frequency of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) impairment in a national representative sample of 8 to 9 year olds in Germany and to evaluate the impact of orthodontic treatment need. METHODS: Data were collected in the Sixth German Oral Health Study (Sechste Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie, DMS 6) and subjects were sampled using a multistage sampling technique. OHRQoL was measured with a modified version of the 5­item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-5) which was administered in a computer-assisted personal interview. Children were also examined for malocclusion and orthodontic treatment need. RESULTS: In all, 1892 children aged 8-9 years were invited to take part. Finally, data of 705 children (48.6% female) could be included in the analysis. The OHIP­5 mean was 1.3 (±2.0). There was no relevant influence from age and gender on the OHIP­5 summary scores (r < 0.10), but the summary scores differed when analyzed separately regarding orthodontic treatment need or no orthodontic treatment need (1.5 ± 2.0 vs. 1.2 ± 1.9, p = 0.020). Nevertheless, the level appears to be low. CONCLUSIONS: Malocclusions with orthodontic treatment need have an influence on OHRQoL.

Comparison of orthodontic treatment need and malocclusion prevalence according to KIG, ICON, and mIOTN in German 8- to 9-year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (DMS 6).

PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to compare the malocclusion indices KIG (Kieferorthopädische Indikationsgruppen, Orthodontic Indication Groups), ICON (Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need), and mIOTN (modified Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need) regarding differences in malocclusion prevalence and their assessment of orthodontic treatment need in German 8­ to 9­year-old children of the Sixth German Oral Health Study (Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie, DMS 6). METHODS: The necessary data for the calculation of the KIG, mIOTN, and ICON were collected by a dentist as part of a clinical orthodontic examination during the field phase of the DMS 6 and by a subsequent digital orthodontic model-analytical evaluation of intraoral scans of the dental arches and the occlusal situation in habitual occlusion. RESULTS: Prevalence, severity, and treatment need of tooth and jaw misalignments differed in part considerably depending on the index used for assessment. On the other hand, there were several outcomes which yielded quite similar results for the different indices used, such as orthodontic treatment need, which ranged from 40.4% (KIG) over 41.6% (ICON) to 44.2% (mIOTN). Interestingly, orthodontic treatment need for the individual subject could differ considerably, when assessed using different indices. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the results show that the mIOTN is much more conservative in assessing malocclusion prevalences often being smaller than those derived by KIG or ICON. In contrast, KIG and ICON often yield similar prevalences with certain distinct differences due to discrepancies in the respective definitions and also clearly differentiate between treatment possibility and arbitrarily determined treatment need.