1 / 18

Reporting the Extent of Dental Fluorosis and Enamel Opacities Using Different Indices

Reporting the Extent of Dental Fluorosis and Enamel Opacities Using Different Indices. J. McLoughlin 1 , J. Clarkson 1 , R. AlAyaha 2 1 Trinity College, Dublin 2 Riyadh Armed Forces Hospital, Saudi Arabia. Introduction.

tivona
Download Presentation

Reporting the Extent of Dental Fluorosis and Enamel Opacities Using Different Indices

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Reporting the Extent of Dental Fluorosis and Enamel Opacities Using Different Indices J. McLoughlin1, J. Clarkson1, R. AlAyaha2 1Trinity College, Dublin 2Riyadh Armed Forces Hospital, Saudi Arabia

  2. Introduction • Dental fluorosis levels are increasing in both fluoridated and non fluoridated communities • Studies reporting levels of fluorosis use different indices and report results differently • Comparison of the levels of fluorosis & enamel opacities from different studies is problematical

  3. Indices Fluorosis: • Dean’s Index (DI) • (Dean et al 1942) • Thylstrup & Fejerskov Index (TF) • (Thylstrup & Fejerskov 1978) • Tooth Surface Index of Fluorosis (TSIF) • (Horowitz et al 1984) • Enamel Defects: • Modified Developmental Defects of Enamel Index (DDE) • - (Clarkson & O’Mullane 1989)

  4. Differences Between Indices

  5. Studies of Fluorosis & Enamel Opacities

  6. Recording Fluorosis & Opacities

  7. Reporting Fluorosis & Opacities

  8. Aim of the Study To determine how standardised reporting of results using different indices could provide improved information about the public health importance of fluorosis and enamel defects

  9. Materials & Methods • School children (354) in 6th class in primary school • Life time residents in area with fluoridated water (0.8-1.0ppm) • Dean’s Index, TF and Modified DDE • Artificial light 1 metre away • Teeth wet for Dean’s Index & DDE • Allowed to dry for 2 mins for TF

  10. Dean’s Index

  11. Thylstrup & Fejerskov (TF) Index

  12. Modified Developmental Defects of Enamel Index (DDE)

  13. Mean Number of Teeth (SD) Affected by DDE 2 and TF Scores

  14. Number and Percentage of Children With up to Half (1-4) the Index Teeth With the Various TF Scores.

  15. Number and Percentage of Children With up to Half (1-5) the Index Teeth With the Various DDE Scores

  16. Mouth & Tooth Prevalence Tooth Prevalence TF> 0 57.8% DDE2 24.6% Up to Half Index teeth affected TF1 77% TF2 87% DDE2 73% Mouth Prevalence Dean's 29.7% TF > 0 74.3% DDE2 51.7%

  17. Variations in the Levels of Fluorosis & Enamel Opacities • According to the index used • (Dean’s, TF, DDE) • Reporting of data • (Mouth v tooth prevalence)

  18. Conclusions • Reporting the proportion of index teeth affected by fluorosis may be useful in determining the public health importance of dental fluorosis • Standardisation of recording and reporting of dental fluorosis is required in order to allow for valid comparison between studies

More Related