IADR Abstract Archives
Comparative analysis of severe dental fluorosis by two diagnostic methods.
Objectives: To compare two indexes used for dental fluorosis determination in a population characterized by an endemic form of fluorosis.
Methods: The work was analysed and authorised by the ethics committee of the University of Barcelona. For the classification of dental fluorosis, the Dean index (DI) and the Thylstrup and Fejerskov Index (TFI) were used. Patients from the rural population of Anantapur (Andra-Pradesh, India) were considered in this study. Four dentists were calibrated in each method for fluorosis determination.
Results: A total of 1144 patients were examined, of which 58.7% were women and 41.3% were men. A prevalence of fluorosis signs was 92.9% in the patients examined by DI and 92.7% in the examined by TFI. The statistics for DI and TFI showed a predominance of the most severe type of lesion. Considering the correspondence between the indices applied, the moderate to severe forms were observed in 74.4% by TFI and 62.6% by DI.
Conclusions: DI is a frequently used index because of the uniformity and facility of application. TFI its a more complex index based on histological aspects of fluorosis. In our results, TFI seems to give a more detailed distribution of severe fluorosis cases. However, no statistical difference was found between both indexes. The TFI gives more accurate results in relation to severe fluorosis form, in change DI just show the severe form in a big group. Therefore, TFI is a better index, when the objective of the study is to describe a more detailed distribution of the severe form of dental fluorosis in the population.
Methods: The work was analysed and authorised by the ethics committee of the University of Barcelona. For the classification of dental fluorosis, the Dean index (DI) and the Thylstrup and Fejerskov Index (TFI) were used. Patients from the rural population of Anantapur (Andra-Pradesh, India) were considered in this study. Four dentists were calibrated in each method for fluorosis determination.
Results: A total of 1144 patients were examined, of which 58.7% were women and 41.3% were men. A prevalence of fluorosis signs was 92.9% in the patients examined by DI and 92.7% in the examined by TFI. The statistics for DI and TFI showed a predominance of the most severe type of lesion. Considering the correspondence between the indices applied, the moderate to severe forms were observed in 74.4% by TFI and 62.6% by DI.
Conclusions: DI is a frequently used index because of the uniformity and facility of application. TFI its a more complex index based on histological aspects of fluorosis. In our results, TFI seems to give a more detailed distribution of severe fluorosis cases. However, no statistical difference was found between both indexes. The TFI gives more accurate results in relation to severe fluorosis form, in change DI just show the severe form in a big group. Therefore, TFI is a better index, when the objective of the study is to describe a more detailed distribution of the severe form of dental fluorosis in the population.