Objective: : To assess the impact of malocclusion on the quality of life. Materials and Methods: : This cross-sectional study involved 150 subjects attending the Primary Care Unit with no history of orthodontic treatment. The Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) with 10 occlusal characteristics were measured on study models. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was assessed with the Malaysian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire (OHIP-14). The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the relationship between the malocclusion and quality of life. Results: : Significantly weak correlations ( r = .176) were found between the DAI and the OHRQoL. Females and the younger age group (12–19 years) tended to score higher on the OHIP-14 than their counterparts. For males, domain 3 (psychological discomfort; r = .462), domain 4 (physical disability; r = .312), domain 7 (handicap; r = .309), and overall score ( r = .289) were weak correlates but significant to the DAI compared with females. The older age group showed a significant weak correlation in domain 3 (psychological discomfort; r = .268) and domain 7 (handicap; r = .238), whereas the younger age group showed no correlation with any domain. Conclusions: : The DAI score does not predict the effect of malocclusion on the OHRQoL.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of malocclusion and need for orthodontic treatment among persons with Down Syndrome (DS). Materials and Methods: Study participants were 113 persons with DS from the selected community-based rehabilitation center who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten occlusal characteristics of the Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) were measured on study models to determine the degree of malocclusion. A single score represented the dentofacial anomalies, determined the level of severity, and determined the need for orthodontic treatment. Results: Crowding in the anterior maxillary and mandibular arch was the main malocclusion problems among the subjects with DS. Comparison between age group and genders revealed no significant differences in four categories of orthodontic treatment need ( P > .05). Conclusion: Most of the subjects with DS (94; 83.2%) had severe and very severe malocclusion, which indicated a desirable and mandatory need for orthodontic treatment.

Objective. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the legal representatives’ perceptions on dental care access of individuals with Down syndrome (DS) compared to their non-DS siblings in Peninsular Malaysia. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted throughout community-based rehabilitation centers (CBRC) and the Down Syndrome Organization. Legal representatives of individuals with DS within the criteria were given a structured and validated questionaire. Result. This study demonstrated that individuals with DS (76.9%) significantly utilized more health services than non-DS siblings (23.1%). The service most regularly used was speech therapy followed by opthalmology and dental services. Twenty-five per cent of respondents reported difficulty in finding dental care services for their DS child and 46.9% admitted that healthcare for their DS child took more time. The majority of DS individuals received less complex dental treatment and none received any orthodontic treatment, despite their severe occlusal problems. Conclusion. A high proportion of parents appear to be able to access dental and medical care for their DS child. However, some parents perceived difficulty in finding oral healthcare.