Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Impact of Malocclusion on the Quality of Life of Brazilian Adolescents: A Population-Based Study

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of malocclusion on the quality of life (QOL) of adolescents in Brazil. We carried out a cross-sectional study in a sample population of 1015 schoolchildren aged 12 to 15 years from São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil. The explanatory variable was malocclusion, evaluated on the basis of the normative need or the adolescent’s self-perceived need for dental treatment. Normative need for dental treatment was determined by professional diagnosis, made on the basis of Angle’s classification, the Dental Aesthetic Index, and other morphological deviations (e.g., posterior crossbite, posterior open bite, and deep overbite). We analyzed the impact of malocclusion on the QOL using the Portuguese version of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14. Associations were estimated by using the prevalence ratio (PR) in Poisson regression analysis, with hierarchized modeling. An alpha of 5% was adopted as the criterion for statistical significance. The QOL of adolescents was impacted by malocclusion, classified by a normative need for treatment according to the Dental Aesthetic Index (PR = 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03–1.56) or by the self-perceived need for treatment (PR = 2.54; 95% CI = 1.81–3.56). Certain sociodemographic variables, including the head of the family (PR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.02–2.23), greater educational level of the head of the family (PR = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.17–0.61), and female sex (PR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.05–1.89), had negative associations with QOL. We conclude that malocclusion has a negative impact on the QOL of adolescents, associated with socioeconomic conditions and the cosmetic effects of malocclusion.

Introduction

The concept of oral health-related quality of life (QOL) refers to the impact that oral health or disease has on a person’s day-to-day activities and general wellbeing [1]. Oral diseases and disorders can have negative effects on the lives of those who have them [2]. For example, facial appearance affects how a person perceives themselves and is perceived by society [3]. Therefore, QOL is a dynamic construction [4]. Each person has their own self-perceptions, which are influenced by their way of life, past experiences, hopes for the future, dreams, and ambitions [5].

There has been increasing interest in QOL as it relates to the oral health of adolescents, whose lives are likely to be negatively impacted by oral disorders [6]. Various studies have been conducted to analyze the impact of malocclusion on adolescents’ QOL and have found that malocclusion is associated with higher levels of dissatisfaction with appearance, and have the potential to negatively impact QOL [3,79]. However, socioeconomic status, the home environment, and familial influences play key roles in determining an individual’s oral health. Thus, in addition to functional dimensions, the psychosocial dimensions of oral health must be considered when seeking to implement and evaluate oral health interventions [10].

One instrument that is commonly used to evaluate the impact of oral health problems on QOL is the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14, which is a shortened form of the original OHIP-49 developed by Slade [11]. The OHIP-14 has been validated for Brazilian population[12]. This instrument was originally developed through studies of elderly patients, but has shown good success when used to evaluate the impact of oral problems on the QOL of adolescents. The OHIP-14 has good psychometric properties, which are similar to those of the original instrument.

To evaluate the impact of malocclusion on QOL, we need to consider the different domains that can be affected, as well as their relationship with personality traits and psychosocial or socioeconomic factors. Some people with serious malocclusion are satisfied with or indifferent to the appearance of their teeth, while others are worried with minor irregularities [7,13]. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of malocclusion and the perception of the need for orthodontic treatment on the QOL of adolescents, also considering socioeconomic factors.

Methodology

This research was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of the Federal University of Maranhão (protocol n° 2429/2010-10). Written informed consent was obtained from the State Department for Education, the directors of the participating schools, and the parents/guardians of the schoolchildren.

We carried out a cross-sectional study in a population of adolescent boys and girls (age range: 12–15 years) who were enrolled in primary education schools in São Luís, MA, Brazil. Eligible participants were students who were regularly enrolled in years 5 to 9 of primary education, were aged 12 to 15 full years at the moment of the exam, and had not previously received any type of orthodontic treatment. The exclusion criteria were: adolescents with mental disorders, based on parents and teachers report (n = 0); who didn´t have first permanent molars in the dental arcade (n = 20) based on clinical examination; who refused to participate in the study (n = 07); or who were not present in school at either of two evaluation visits (n = 11).

The sample size was calculated by using the Epi Info software package, version 6.0 [14]. We estimated that a sample of 336 pupils would have a power of 90% and a confidence level of 95% to identify significant prevalence ratios (PR) exceeding 1.6. We assumed that the prevalence of impact on QOL among unexposed adolescents (no malocclusion) was 29.57% [15], and that there was a 1:1 proportion between exposed and non-exposed subjects. Considering the design effect (stratified cluster sample) of the study’s complex sample equal to 2.0, the minimum estimated sample size was 672 pupils. We maintained the same proportionality of students aged 12 to 15 years as was observed in the population, using estimates from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics as a reference point [16]. To account for the possibility of faulty data, losses, or the need for stratifications, we added 30% to this value, for a total minimum sample of 900 adolescents.

Cluster sampling was conducted in two stages. First, we selected the schools (primary sample units) by using the lists of schools available from the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research/Ministry of Education and the Municipal Education Department of São Luís, MA as reference bases. Second, we selected the students (secondary sample units) by using the list of students aged 12 to 15 years enrolled in public and private school networks available at each school selected as a reference bases. The number of students from each school who were enrolled in the study was proportional to the size of the school.

We estimated diagnostic reproducibility (intra- and inter-examiner) by using the Kappa test and the intraclass correlation test, accepting minimum values of 0.7. Two previously trained teams collected the data. Each team consisted of an interviewer/note taker and an examiner (orthodontist), who used a questionnaire and an orthodontic exam sheet, respectively. The questionnaire was used to collect demographic data (e.g., age and sex), socioeconomic data (e.g., administrative category of the school [public or private], educational level of the head of the family (parent or guardian who earns the highest income), household income, history of failing school (students who repeated the same school year one or more times), criteria for economic classification [17], and self-reported skin color [18], -this questionnaire was filled by parents of adolescents- and behavioral data (e.g., adolescent’s perceived need for orthodontic treatment, which was filled in by adolescents).

The criteria for economic classification categorized the economic classes in A-B (class with greater purchasing power), C (class with medium purchasing power) or D-E (lower purchasing power), according the Brazilian Association of Research Companies- ABEP [17]. These criteria consider the possession of consumer goods (television, refrigerator, radio, automobile, maid, washing machine, DVD player and freezer).

Information on oral health-related QOL was obtained via the Portuguese version of the OHIP-14 [12] and was filled by adolescents. The orthodontic exam sheet was used to collect oral health-related data during the clinical exam, such as the occlusal condition according to Angle’s classification [19], the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) [20], and the presence of morphological deviations not identified by the previous indicators (e.g., posterior crossbite, posterior open bite, and deep overbite).

Collection of Oral Health-Related Data

OHIP-14.

The OHIP-14—Brazilian version is a validated questionnaire about the impact of oral health conditions on QOL [12]. We used this instrument to verify the lived experiences of adolescents in the 12 months before the oral exam. Each question was assigned a weight. The response was calculated on a scale in which the selected code was multiplied by the respective weight of the question. The overall range of the scale was 0 to 28, with index values between 0 and 9 indicating no impact and values between 10 and 28 indicating an impact of oral health on QOL. The higher the value of the index was, the greater the negative impact that oral health had on QOL.

Angle’s classification.

Molar relationships were evaluated by Angle’s classification as Class I, Class II division 1, Class II division 2, and Class III [21]. For the purposes of analysis, this variable was later categorized as normal, Class I, Class II, and Class III.

DAI.

The DAI was used to evaluate the presence and seriousness of malocclusion and the normative need for orthodontic treatment. To apply the DAI exams, we used an orthodontic thread (1 mm in diameter and 6 cm in length) and an adapted silicon cursor. We made measurements using an endodontic millimeter ruler [22].

Adolescents with dental aesthetics indices of grade 1 (DAI < 25; no need for treatment) or 2 (DAI = 26–30; elective need) were considered not to have a normative need for treatment. Those with indices of grade 3 (DAI = 31–35; highly desirable need) or 4 (DAI ≥ 36; required need) were considered to have a normative need for treatment.

Morphological deviations not identified by above indicators.

The DAI only covers changes to teeth in areas anterior to the maxilla and jaw. Therefore, the clinical exam involved a more complete evaluation, to observe the presence of other morphological deviations, such as posterior crossbite, posterior open bite, and deep overbite. Posterior crossbite was defined by the presence of at least one crossed tooth in the premolar or molar area. Posterior open bite was defined by the presence of a space greater than 2 mm between the premolars or the upper and lower molars. Deep overbite was defined when the upper incisors reached the cervical third of the lower incisors, with a trespass greater than 4 mm [23].

Statistical Analysis

To process the collected variables, we built a database using an Excel spreadsheet and exported the data for analysis by using the Stata for Windows software package (version 11.0). We performed a descriptive analysis of the data, estimating the means, standard deviations, medians, and interquartile ranges, as well as absolute and relative frequencies, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Differences in the frequency distributions of the qualitative (categorical) variables were analyzed by the Chi-square test.

We estimated the association of study variables with QOL by the prevalence ratio (PR) and the corresponding interval estimates (95% CIs) by Poisson regression analysis. For adjusted analyses, we used hierarchized modeling (Fig 1). In the adjusted model, variables with p < 0.10 were retained in each block, even when this value was changed by the inclusion of variables from subsequent blocks. An alpha level of 5% was adopted as the criterion for statistical significance. In all analyses, we considered the complex sample design effect (stratified and cluster sample) using the svy commands.

Results

A total of 1050 adolescents, all 12 to 15 years old, were evaluated for their eligibility to participate in the study; 17 were already receiving orthodontic treatment and were therefore excluded. Of the 1033 eligible adolescents, 7 adolescents refused to participate in the study and 11 adolescents were not present in school at the second evaluation (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Fig 2. Sample Flow Diagram.

São Luís, Brazil, 2012/2013. Adapted from CONSORT 2010.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162715.g002

The study population comprised 1015 schoolchildren enrolled in 30 schools (19 public and 11 private), 75.4% were from public schools and 68% of economic classes C-D-E. This means that the most of the participants are in a lower socioeconomic condition. Besides, the state in which the study was conducted (Maranhão), is one of the poorest states in Brazil.

The Unified Health System (SUS) does not provide orthodontic treatment for the population in most of Brazilian municipalities. Just recently the Ministry of Health incorporated orthodontic treatment in the list of the services offered in Dental Specialties Centers (CEO) (Ministerial Decree 718-SAS 20/12/2010). However, according to the external evaluation of Access and Quality of Specialized Dental Centers Improvement Program (PMAQ-CEO) [24], the service is still not available in Maranhão, and is offered only in 10% of CEO’s from all over Brazil. Moreover, the few treatments offered do not meet the patient’s demand. Thus, data can be generalized for Brazil and applied to countries with similar socioeconomic situation that do not offer free orthodontic services. Another factor is that most orthodontic treatments start when the person already has more than 18 years old that can work and pay their own orthodontic treatment.

We investigated the association between the variables (sociodemographic and malocclusion) and the normative need for orthodontic treatment by DAI, self-perceived malocclusion and impact of oral health on the QOL of the adolescents (Table 1).

thumbnail
Table 1. Variables associated with the normative need for OT by DAI, self-perceived malocclusion and impact of oral health on QOL.

Data were obtained from adolescents enrolled in primary education schools in São Luís, Brazil in the 2012/2013 school year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162715.t001

Adolescent girls reported more malocclusions than adolescent boys (64.3% versus 56.5%, P = 0.022), however, they had less normative need for orthodontic treatment (41.5% versus 48.1%, P = 0.021). Students of private schools had higher normative need for orthodontic treatment (55.6% versus 41.2%, P = 0.025), but the perception of orthodontic problems was similar between the two types of school (P = 0.914). There was an association between the need for orthodontic treatment according to DAI and the self-perceived need (P = 0.003). The malocclusion by Angle criterion was associated with malocclusion according to DAI (P <0.001) but not with the self-reported malocclusion (P = 0.064).

Age (p = 0.046), sex (p = 0.022), economic class (p = 0.009), type of school (p = 0.010), educational level of the head of the family (p = 0.006), and self-perceived need for orthodontic treatment (p < 0.001) showed significant differences in the impact on QOL in the frequency distributions between the groups.

Poisson regression analysis was used to compare the sociodemographic variables and the impact on QOL (Table 2). Sex (PR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.05–1.89), head of the family (PR = 1.52; 95% CI = 1.03–2.23), and educational level of the head of the family (PR = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.17–0.61) were associated with an impact of oral health on QOL.

thumbnail
Table 2. Poisson regression analysis between sociodemographic variables and the impact of oral health on QOL.

Data were obtained from adolescents enrolled in primary education schools in São Luís, Brazil in the 2012/2013 school year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162715.t002

Table 3 shows the measurement of the association obtained by the Poisson regression analysis between the occlusal variables and the impact on QOL. A normative need (PR = 1.27; 95% CI = 1.03–1.56) and a self-perceived need (PR = 2.54; 95% CI = 1.81–3.56) for orthodontic treatment were associated with an impact on QOL. The other occlusal variables evaluated did not show significant associations.

thumbnail
Table 3. Poisson regression analysis between normative/self-perceived need for treatment of malocclusion and the impact of oral health on QOL.

Data were obtained from adolescents enrolled in primary education schools in São Luís, Brazil in the 2012/2013 school year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162715.t003

Discussion

Adolescence is a period of transformation, characterized by an emotional reorganization involving various internal and external conflicts. Because of these factors, there has been increasing interest in the impact of malocclusion on the adolescent’s psychosocial well-being [25]. Therefore, we not only evaluated the impact of malocclusion, but also the impact of the perceived need for orthodontic treatment, on the adolescents’ QOL. When classified according to Angle’s classification, malocclusion did not affect the adolescents’ QOL. However, when evaluated by focusing on dental appearance using the DAI, malocclusion had a negative impact on the adolescents’ QOL.

These results differ from those of some other studies [3,7,26,27], which did not find an association between the normative need for orthodontic treatment and the impact on QOL. One possible explanation for this difference might be the fact that the OHIP-14 questionnaire was not developed to measure the impact of orthodontic problems on QOL specifically. This instrument measures the impact of oral health on QOL in a general way, capturing effects attributed to malocclusion and dental appearance, as well as other oral conditions, including pain, phonation problems, periodontal disease, and caries. [2830].

We found that 44.72% (n = 454) of the adolescents had a normative need, but 60.39% (n = 613) of adolescents had a self-perceived need, for orthodontic treatment. This result differs from studies showing that normative clinical criteria overestimate problems compared to a person’s self-perception [31,32]. Even if a physical problem affects a person’s subjective perception of well-being, the impact on QOL also depends on their expectations and preferences, their material, social, and psychological resources, and, above all, their social and cultural values [2830].

There are many reasons why an adolescent may feel a need for orthodontic treatment and, in many cases, these reasons are not related to the seriousness of malocclusion [33]. We found that the self-perceived need for orthodontic treatment was associated with the impact on QOL, consistent with the findings of other investigations [3,7,26,31,34]. Adolescents’ self-perceived need for orthodontic treatment appeared to be associated with aesthetic factors. Specifically, the impact on QOL was associated with malocclusion when measured via the DAI, but not when measured via Angle’s classification. Marques et al. (2006) [3] obtained similar results, also finding that adolescents attribute importance to the appearance of their teeth [26,35], which, in turn, is influenced by their dissatisfaction with their appearance and manifests itself in the desire for orthodontic treatment [3,36,37].

When the variables for malocclusion that comprise the DAI were analyzed separately, we did not observe an association between these variables and the impact on QOL. Our findings differ from those of previous studies that found an impact on QOL to be associated with misalignment of the maxillary teeth [3] or loss of the anterior teeth [38, 39]. The differences between the findings may be partly explained by the different forms of malocclusions’ classification. The Vargas and Paixão’s study [38] used the rating of the self-reported MO, while in others studies [3, 39] participants were examined using different indicators (DAI and OIDP). In our evaluation, we found a relation between MO and QoL using both classifications: DAI and self-reported MO. However, DAI was just associated to QoL in deforming category (in a mandatory orthodontic treatment status). We believe that only a specific problem of MO is not enough to impact on QOL. Nevertheless, when the aesthetic commitment is greater (affecting different areas of DAI), the impact becomes noticeable, as noted in our results.

The relation between MO and QOL was higher when the MO was classified according to self-reported criteria. Thus, we suggest that the negative impact of a self-perceived need for orthodontic treatment on QOL does not necessarily correspond to the orthodontist’s assessment of the malocclusion [33]. Other factors, such as the adolescent’s desire to be in a high socioeconomic position or to be fashionable [40,41], are important, given that socioeconomic conditions had a negative impact on QOL.

Our study showed an association between socioeconomic conditions and an impact on QOL through the variables of the head of the family and the educational level of the head of the family. Although some authors [7,42] have claimed that a person’s socioeconomic condition does not negatively affect QOL, our results corroborate those of Davey-Smith, Blane, and Bartley (1994) [43], Piovesan et al. (2010) [44], Scapini et al. (2013) [8], Benson et al. (2014) [45], and Tuchtenhagen et al. (2015) [25]. They showed that a low level of education on the part of the head of the family directly and negatively affects the formulation of concepts of self-care in health. Adolescents from such families are more susceptible to oral conditions that can negatively influence QOL, such as poorer oral health; in other words, they have a greater experience of caries and periodontal disease [8,26,4345]. In addition, some authors have noted that socioeconomic conditions are directly related to the presence of harmful oral habits, which could influence the development of malocclusion [46].

The variables of skin color and age did not show an association with the QOL related to the adolescents’ oral health, similar to the studies by Feu et al. (2010) and Scapini et al. (2013) [7,8]. The variable of sex showed an association with an impact on QOL. Girls said that oral health had a higher impact on QOL than boys, similar to the study by Ukra et al. (2013) [9]. The need for orthodontic treatment and its impact on QOL seemed to be associated with cosmetic factors. Thus, these results suggest that a person’s sex influences the QOL of adolescents who are preoccupied with their appearance and who desire orthodontic treatment, as other studies have also reported [7,47,48].

The clinical implications of this study were that quality of life is more associated with aesthetic and socioeconomic condition than with the functional problems of malocclusion. The study’s cross-sectional design could be considered the limitation of this research, although it is not an important one because occlusion is established by the age range examined in this study and longitudinal tracking would not change the results significantly.

Conclusion

Malocclusion, represented by the normative need and the self-perceived need for orthodontic treatment, has a negative impact on the QOL of adolescents. This impact is mostly associated with aesthetic changes related to malocclusion and to the adolescent’s socioeconomic condition. There was no relation between QOL and malocclusion when the latter was measured by Angle classification.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Federal University of Maranhão for providing support through a Scientific Initiative Grant (no. 09/2009), the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the scholarship and the Foundation for Research Support and Scientific and Technological Development of Maranhão (FAPEMA) for supporting the translation and publication of this article.

Author Contributions

  1. Conceptualization: LFGS EBAFT CMCA.
  2. Formal analysis: LFGS EBAFT.
  3. Funding acquisition: LFGS EBAFT.
  4. Investigation: LFGS HVF.
  5. Methodology: LFGS EBAFT CMCA.
  6. Supervision: LFGS CMCA.
  7. Validation: LFGS HVF.
  8. Writing – original draft: LFGS EBAFT CMCA.
  9. Writing – review & editing: LFGS EBAFT ALPP CCCR CMCA.

References

  1. 1. Filstrup SL, Briskie D, da Fonseca M, Lawrence L, Wandera A, Inglehart MR. Early childhood caries and quality of life: child and parent perspectives. Pediatr Dent. 2003;25(5):431–40. pmid:14649606
  2. 2. Pahel BT, Rozier RG, Slade GD. Parental perceptions of children’s oral health: the Early Childhood Oral Health Impact Scale (ECOHIS). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;30(5):6. pmid:17263880
  3. 3. Marques LS, Ramos-Jorge ML, Paiva SM, Pordeus IA. Malocclusion: esthetic impact and quality of life among Brazilian schoolchildren. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129(3):424–7. pmid:16527640
  4. 4. Carr AJ, Gibson B, Robinson PG. Is quality of life determined by expectations or experience? BMJ. 2001;322:1240–3. pmid:11358783
  5. 5. Eiser C, Morse R. The measurement of quality of life in children: past and future perspectives. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2001;22(4):248–55. pmid:11530898
  6. 6. Oliveira DC, Ferreira FM, Morosini IA, Torres-Pereira CC, Martins Paiva S, Fraiz FC. Impact of oral health status on the oral health-related quality of life of brazilian male incarcerated adolescents. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2015;13(5):417–25. pmid:25789358
  7. 7. Feu D, Oliveira BH, Almeida MAO, Kiyak HA, Miguel JAM. Oral health-related quality of life and orthodontic treatment seeking. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Aug;138(2):152–9. pmid:20691356
  8. 8. Scapini A, Feldens CA, Ardenghi TM, Kramer PF. Malocclusion impacts adolescents’ oral health-related quality of life. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(3):5512–8. pmid:23210545
  9. 9. Ukra A, Foster Page KA, Thomson WM, Farella M, Tawse Smith A, Beck V. Impact of malocclusion on quality of life among New Zealand adolescentes. N Z Dent J. 2013; 109(1):18–23. pmid:23923152
  10. 10. Paula JS, Leite IC, Almeida AB, Ambrosano GM, Pereira AC, Mialhe FL. The influence of oral health conditions, socioeconomic status and home environment factors on schoolchildren’s self-perception of quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012; 10:6. Parte superior do formulário pmid:22244092
  11. 11. Slade GD. Derivation and validation of a short-form oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997;25:284–90. pmid:9332805
  12. 12. Oliveira BH, Nadanovsky P. Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile—Short form. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005; 33:307–14. pmid:16008638
  13. 13. Klages U, Bruckner A, Zentner A. Dental aesthetics, self-awareness, and oral health-related quality of life. Eur J Orthop. 2002;24:53–59. pmid:15536839
  14. 14. Dean AG, Dean JA, Colombier D. Epi-Info, version 6: A word processing database and statistics program for epidemiology on microcomputers. Atlanta: CDC, 1994.
  15. 15. Kragt L, Dhamo B, Wolvius EB, Ongkosuwito EM. The impact of malocclusions on oral health-related quality of life in children-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Dec 4. pmid:26635095 [Epub ahead of print]. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26635095. Accessed 03 August 2016.
  16. 16. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Pesquisa—IBGE. Síntese de indicadores sociais: uma análise das condições de vida da população brasileira/ 2010. Available: http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/imprensa/ppts/0000000144.pdf. Accessed 09 May 2016.
  17. 17. Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Pesquisa—ABEP. Critério padrão de classificação econômica Brasil / 2008. Available: http://www.abep.org/criterio-brasil. Accessed 15 July 2016.
  18. 18. Parra FC, Amado RC, Lambertucci JR, Rocha J, Antunes CM, Pena SDJ. Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003 January7; 100(1): 177–182. pmid:12509516 Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC140919/#id2601616
  19. 19. Martins AS, Cotrim-Ferreira FA. Classificação das más oclusões. In: Ferreira FV. Ortodontia: diagnóstico e planejamento clínico. São Paulo: Artmed; 2008. p. 99–114.
  20. 20. Organização Mundial de Saúde. Levantamentos básicos em saúde bucal. 4th ed. São Paulo: Ed. Santos ; 1999.
  21. 21. Angle EH. Classification malocclusion. Dental Cosmos 1899; XLI (18): 249–264.
  22. 22. Santos PCF, Monteiro ALB, Rocha RG, Chaves Júnior CM. An alternative tool to acess DAI. Rev Clín Ortodon Dental Press. 2008;7(5):34–39. Portuguese.
  23. 23. Proffit WR, Fields HW Jr, Sarver DM. Ortodontia Contemporânea. 4th ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier; 2007.
  24. 24. Brasil, Ministério da Saúde. Departamento de Atenção Básica. Programa de Melhoria do Acesso e da Qualidade dos Centros de Especialidades Odontológicas (PMAQ-CEO), 2016. Available: http://dab.saude.gov.br/portaldab/ape_pmaq.php?conteudo=pmaq_ceo. Accessed 15 July 2016.
  25. 25. Sardenberg F, Martins MT, Bendo CB, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM, Auad SM et al. Malocclusion and oral health related quality of life in Brazilian school children. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:83–9. pmid:22612389
  26. 26. Tuchtenhagen S, Bresolin CR, Tomazoni F, da Rosa GN, Del Fabro JP, Mendes FM et al. The influence of normative and subjective oral health status on schoolchildren's happiness. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:15. pmid:25616978
  27. 27. Bernabé E, Tsakos G, Oliveira CM, Sheiham A. Impacts on daily performances atrributed to malocclusions using the condition especific feature of the oral impacts on daily performances index. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:241–7. pmid:18251604
  28. 28. Hamdam AM, Al-Omari IK, Al-Bitar ZB. Ranking dental aesthetics and thresholds of treatment need: a comparison between patients, parents, and dentists. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:366–371. pmid:17702796
  29. 29. Mandall NA, Matthew S, Fox D, Wright J, Conboy FM, O’Brien KD. Prediction of compliance and completion of orthodontic treatment: are quality of life measures important? Eur J Orthod. 2007;30:40–45. pmid:17971352
  30. 30. De Paula DF Júnior, Santos NCM, Silva ET, Nunes MF, Leles CR. Psychosocial Impact of Dental Esthetics on Quality of Life in Adolescents. Angle Orthod. 2009:79(6):1188–1193. pmid:19852614
  31. 31. Mandall NA, McCord JF, Blinkhorn AS, Worthington HV, O’Brien KD. Perceived aesthetic impact of malocclusion and oral self-perceptions in 14- to 15-year-old Asian and Caucasian children in greater Manchester. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22 (2):175–183. pmid:10822891
  32. 32. Peres KG, Traebert ESA, Marcenes W. Differences between normative criteria and self-perception in the assessment of malocclusion. Rev Saúde Pública. 2002;36:230–236. Portuguese. pmid:12045805
  33. 33. Agou S, Locker D, Streiner DL, Tompson B. Impact of self-esteem on the oral-health-related quality of life of children with malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):484–9. pmid:18929265
  34. 34. Ghijselings I, Brosens V, Willems G, Fieuws S, Clijmans M, Lemiere J. Normative and self-perceived orthodontic treatment need in 11- to 16-year-old children. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(2):179–185. pmid:23761429
  35. 35. Bernabé E, Flores-Mir C. Orthodontic treatment need in Peruvian young adults evaluated through dental aesthetic index. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76:417–21. pmid:16637721
  36. 36. Cons NC, Jenny J, Kohout FJ, Freer TJ, Eismann D. Perceptions of occlusal conditions in Australia, the German Democratic Republic and the United States of America. Int Dent J. 1983;33:200–206. pmid:6575966
  37. 37. Feldens CA, Nakamura EK, Tessarollo FR, Closs LQ. Desire for orthodontic treatment and associated factors among adolescents in Southern Brazil. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(2):224–32. pmid:25045778
  38. 38. Vargas AMD, Paixão HH. The loss of teeth and its meaning in the quality of life of adults who use the municipal oral health services of the Boa Vista Health Center, in Belo Horizonte. Ciências e Saúde Coletiva. 2005; 10(4): 1015–1024. Portuguese.
  39. 39. Ramos-Jorge ML,Bosco VL, Peres MA, Nunes ACGP. The impacto of treatment of dental trauma on the quality of life of adolescentes—a case-control study in Southern Brazil. Dental Traumatology. 2007; 23:114–119. pmid:17367459
  40. 40. Badran SA, Sabrah AH, Hadidi SA, Al-Khateeb S. Effect of socioeconomic status on normative and perceived orthodontic treatment need. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(4):588–593. pmid:24328913
  41. 41. Marques LS, Barbosa CC, Ramos-Jorge ML, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM: Malocclusion prevalence and orthodontic treatment need in 10-14-year-old schoolchildren in Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais State, Brazil: a psychosocial focus. Cad Saúde Pública. 2005, 21(4):1099–1106. Portuguese. pmid:16021247
  42. 42. Bernabé E, Tsakos G, Oliveira CM, Sheiham A. Impacts on daily performances atrributed to malocclusions using the condition especific feature of the oral impacts on daily performances index. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:241–7. pmid:18251604
  43. 43. Darvey-Smith G, Blane D, Bartley M. Explanations for socioeconomic differentials in mortality: evidence from Britain and elsewhere. Eur J Public Health. 1994;4:131–144.
  44. 44. Piovesan C, Antunes JL, Guedes R, Ardenghi TM. Impacto of socioeconomic and clinical factors on child oral health-related quality of life (COHRQoL). Qual Life Res. 2010;19: 1359–66. pmid:20571918
  45. 45. Benson PE, Da'as T, Johal A, Mandall NA, Williams AC, Baker SR et al. Relationships between dental appearance, self-esteem, socio-economic status, and oral health-related quality of life in UK schoolchildren: A 3-year cohort study. Eur J Orthod. 2015Oct; 37(5):481–90. Epub 2014 Dec 5. pmid:25481920
  46. 46. Chandrashekar BR, Reddy C, Manjunath BC, Suma S. Dental health awareness, attitude, oral health-related habits, and behaviors in relation to socio-economic factors among the municipal employees of Mysore city. Ann Trop Med Public Health. 2011;4(2):99–106.
  47. 47. Almeida AB, Leite ICG, Melgaço CA, Marques LS. Dissatisfaction with dentofacial appearance and the normative need for orthodontic treatment.Dent Press J Orthod. 2014;19(3):120–126.
  48. 48. Farzanegan F, Heravi F, Sooratgar A, Dastmalchi P. Evaluation of relationship between oral health-related quality of life and occlusion traits among female adolescents. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2014 Nov;11(6):684–8. pmid:25540664