IADR Abstract Archives
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THREE INDICES FOR FLUOROSIS DIAGNOSTIC
Objectives: To compare Dean, Thylstrup-Fejerskov (TF) y Thylstrup-Fejerskov-Horowitz (TSIF) indices to identify teeth with and without fluorosis.
Methods: Cross-sectional study. n=24 teeth from 14 men and 10 women were included. Mean age: 46.7 years (range: 18-70 years). It included from upper (1) and lower (8) front teeth, upper (4) and lower (5) right section and upper (3) and lower (3) left section. An only person (YT) applied three indices in the same order of pieces. At first diagnostic was done with Dean, second with TF and third with SDIF index. The lowest score of one of the indices determined the belonging to with/without fluorosis group. Cohen’s Kappa index (k) (crude and weighted) estimated the agreement value between Dean-TF, Dean-TSIF and TF-TSIF. Landis and Koch (L-K) qualifying scale was used to interpret the meaning of k.
Results: Weighting by their cathegories, three índices had each other an agreement of k: 0.865, 0.863 and 0.926 for Dean-TF, Dean-TSIF and TF-TSIF, respectively (L-K: very good agreement). From them, 12 pieces with fluorosis and 12 without fluorosis were diagnosed. Every pieces without fluorosis were 0 scored. In fluorosis group, the weighted agreement each other were k = 0.588, 0.596 and 0.798 respectively (L-K: low to moderate agreement).
Conclusions: Three índices showed a very good agreement between them to diagnostic dental fluorosis. They had a clinical basement and their respective score is strongly evaluator-dependent. Further research should consider the use of photographies and/or electronic microscopy to fluorosis diagnostic; unfortunately, up today both techniques are not considered as a gold standard method.
Methods: Cross-sectional study. n=24 teeth from 14 men and 10 women were included. Mean age: 46.7 years (range: 18-70 years). It included from upper (1) and lower (8) front teeth, upper (4) and lower (5) right section and upper (3) and lower (3) left section. An only person (YT) applied three indices in the same order of pieces. At first diagnostic was done with Dean, second with TF and third with SDIF index. The lowest score of one of the indices determined the belonging to with/without fluorosis group. Cohen’s Kappa index (k) (crude and weighted) estimated the agreement value between Dean-TF, Dean-TSIF and TF-TSIF. Landis and Koch (L-K) qualifying scale was used to interpret the meaning of k.
Results: Weighting by their cathegories, three índices had each other an agreement of k: 0.865, 0.863 and 0.926 for Dean-TF, Dean-TSIF and TF-TSIF, respectively (L-K: very good agreement). From them, 12 pieces with fluorosis and 12 without fluorosis were diagnosed. Every pieces without fluorosis were 0 scored. In fluorosis group, the weighted agreement each other were k = 0.588, 0.596 and 0.798 respectively (L-K: low to moderate agreement).
Conclusions: Three índices showed a very good agreement between them to diagnostic dental fluorosis. They had a clinical basement and their respective score is strongly evaluator-dependent. Further research should consider the use of photographies and/or electronic microscopy to fluorosis diagnostic; unfortunately, up today both techniques are not considered as a gold standard method.