## 3 Results  
The response rate was 100%, and a total of 20 children with ASD undergoing orthodontic treatment at the time of the survey were included in this study. The mean age of the sample was 10 years, with a male predominance of 80% compared to 20% females. Of the 20 patients, 8 were undergoing treatment with fixed appliances, 9 were undergoing treatment with removable appliances, and 3 had been treated with both. In general, the orthodontic and orofacial treatment was based on four different basic treatment concepts: (1) removable orthodontic appliance (RA) in 20% of the treatments (N = 4); (2) palatal expander (PE) (with/without a facemask (FM)), with/without a lower appliance (e.g., a lingual arch or lip bumper) in 45% of the treatments (N = 9); (3) orthodontic preformed functional device (Occlusiono-oGuide(r) by Sweden & Martina SpA, Carrare, Italy) in 25% of the treatments (N = 5); and (4) fixed appliance (braces) in 10% of the treatments (N = 2). Successfully, 95% of all treatments (N = 19) led to a favorable outcome by reaching the pre-set goal in relation to treatment progress times, while only 5% (N = 1) had partial success due to a combination of non-compliance and lack of oral hygiene, which prevented the treatment from being completed. The average duration of orthodontic treatment at the time of the survey was 12 months. The prevalent IOTN grade in the sample was grade V, followed by grades III and IV, while few patients were classified as IOTN grade I or II. The treatment need was estimated for the majority of patients both for the Dental Health Component and for the Aesthetic Component. The IOTN-DHC revealed that a substantial portion (60%) of the ASD group had an indicated treatment need. According to the IOTN-AC, nearly all of the ASD group had a score of 8-10, indicating the need for treatment. Tables 1 and 2 show first the distribution and description of the IOTN among the sample and then the actual treatment need according to the scoring, respectively. Regarding the values of the Frankl scale at the beginning of treatment, only 2 of the 20 patients had a negative value of 2, while most of the sample had positive values of 3 and 4. At the end of treatment, all patients with a Frankl scale value of less than 4 improved by one degree of their starting value. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD or Number (\%)** \\ \hline Age (years) & 10 \(\pm\) 3.24 \\ \hline Sex & Male \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Female} \\ \hline IOTN I & 0 \\ \hline IOTN II & 1 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Displacement of teeth \textgreater{} 1 mm but \(\leq\)2 mm} \\ \hline IOTN III & 7 (35) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Anterior or posterior crossbites with \textgreater{}1 mm but \(\leq\)2 mm discrepancy between} \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{the retuded contact position and the intercuspal position} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Increased and incomplete overbite without gingival or palatal trauma} \\ \hline IOTN IV & 4 (20) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Increased overjet \textgreater{} 6 mm but \(\leq\)9 mm} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Reverse overjet \textgreater{} 1 mm but \(\textgreater{}\)3.5 mm with recorded masticatory and} \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{speech difficulties} \\ \hline IOTN V & 8 (40) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Reverse overjet \textgreater{} 3.5 mm with reported masticatory and speech difficulties} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Impeded eruption of teeth (apart from 3 rd molars) due to crowding,} \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{displacement, the presence of} \\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{supernumerary teeth, retained deciduous teeth, and any pathological cause} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Defects of cleft lip and palate} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: IOTN distribution among the sample.