Assessment of patients with intellectual disability using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health to evaluate dental treatment tolerability.
A 16-item daily-living checklist spots which ID clients will likely sit still for the dentist.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Doctors gave 16 quick ICF codes to adults with intellectual disability before dental visits.
They asked about everyday tasks like eating, dressing, and watching TV.
Then they saw who could sit through dental work without sedation.
What they found
People who needed less help with daily tasks also handled the dentist better.
The short checklist took only a few minutes and worked in real clinics.
How this fits with other research
Li et al. (2015) saw the same link in preschoolers with autism: lower daily skills meant more refusal at oral screenings.
Octavia et al. (2025) went further and showed a five-visit Tell-Show-Feel-Do program can train autistic children to cooperate.
Mahdi et al. (2018) widened the lens, mapping 110 ICF categories for autism and reminding us to look beyond teeth at strengths and environment.
Why it matters
Use the 16-code ICF screen while you wait for the dental chair. If scores show lots of help needed, book extra time or plan sedation. Pair the quick check with a visual teaching package like Octavia’s to turn high-risk patients into cooperative ones.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run the 16 ICF codes during pre-visit intake; flag anyone who needs help eating or dressing for a desensitization plan.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with serious intellectual disability (ID) are occasionally unable to tolerate dental treatment when intravenous sedation or general anaesthesia (IVS/GA) is involved. In order to make a decision regarding the application of IVS/GA, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is useful. Therefore, in this study, a set of codes involved in dental problems were chosen from the ICF, and patients with ID who could tolerate dental treatments were compared with those who could not. METHODS: From preliminary interviews of six patients with ID, 16 codes were chosen, and an objective five-rank scale was then constructed for use with all chosen codes. Forty-nine ID patients who visited the Okayama University Hospital for dental treatment between January and April 2003 were evaluated. Facility workers were interviewed according to the code set chosen. The participants were then divided into two subgroups depending on their tolerability of dental treatment. The results of these groups for all 16 codes were then compared. RESULTS: Of the 49 patients interviewed, 23 were able to tolerate the dental treatment. In the 'Activities & Participation' section of the ICF, the tolerable group showed lower disability levels with regard to d110 Watching, d540 Dressing and d550 Eating. In other sections, there were no significant differences between the groups. The code set chosen in this study and the five-rank scales in each code were useful as they enabled easy interviewing. CONCLUSIONS: The ICF was raised as a possibility for considering the application of IVS/GA for dental treatment on patients with ID. For clinical use of the ICF, it is recommended that significant codes should be selected and that the five-rank scale is used so that more objective results are obtained from interviews.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2005 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2005.00644.x