ICDAS is often used. There are interesting papers about caries research in the latest issue of Eur Arch Ped Dent
ICDAS is often used. There are interesting papers about caries research in the latest issue of Eur Arch Ped Dent
I would say, It depends on the setting, the population and the aim of your study.
Not to forget that DMF has been widely used and is relatively robust.
However, it was introduced initially in a high caries population.
Both ICDAS and DMFT can be used, however, I will use DMFS/dmfs which is more robust.
Depends on what you want to know. If you are doing an epidemiological study on a larger scale, DMFT is a measure for caries activity in the young population (not for adults!). ICDAS is probably the best we have to monitor caries lesions in individuals, so suitable for the dentist in managing caries in his patients.
Dear Alok Dubey
ICDAS is most commonly used index and it gives a very clear idea about caries. DMFT can be used in epidemiological study.
If you are looking at recording the progression of lesions for individuals ICDAS is the most comprehensive, and is being used much more frequently.
Historically the DMF index has been by far the most used, but has the limitation of not including non-cavitated lesions, so ICDAS may be more useful, so the question is what you want to measure?
Over the years, a plethora of Dental Caries indices/criteria’s have been devised and appraised for recording of dental caries in an individual as well as for population studies. The index devised by I.J. Molar in 1966 was considered the best index/criteria for evaluating the caries status. This index helps in recording the caries status of dentition for, the smooth surface as well as pit and fissure caries. Moreover, untreated carious lesions are divided into 4 types Type 1, 2, 3, 4 which makes it possible to exclude certain types of carious lesions in either diagnosis or during the analysis. However, this index was more applicable for research purposes and its implementation was difficult in the clinical situation. Depending upon the severity, the index gives weightage to the caries status of a tooth, assessing it as enamel, dentine or probable pulpal complication. However, there are number of limitations and difficulties in assessing the caries status based upon Molar index due to its intricacies, which makes it difficult for the researcher/clinician to assess the condition. More so, the criteria number 2, i.e., “catch in enamel” remain highly controversial, as the catch necessarily is not always because of the dental decay. Roughness, enamel defects, attrition, examiner variability are some of the confounding factors. Especially, the use of sharp explorer of 18 micron millimeters, pose a major disadvantage, as the injudicious probing can cause cavitation of remineralized lesion. Hence, the disadvantageous and practical difficulties outnumbers the advantages and merits of this index. To some extent, the criteria of World Health Organization for oral health assessment appears to be somewhat an ideal index. However, this index also has practical limitations and does not assess the important parameters and the exact depth of lesion.
The International Caries Detection Assessment System (ICDAS) appears to be an accepted caries detection system. This index is quite helpful in assessing the exact caries status as well as helps to differentiate between normal healthy enamel from the demerialized enamel that can be revered by remineralization. ICDAS index, introduced in 2002, by a group cariologists and epidemiologists presents a new technique for the measurement of dental caries that has been developed from the systematic reviews of literature on the clinical caries detection system. It measures the surface changes and potential of the carious lesions by relying on surface characteristics. The index has been designed to detect 6 stages of carious process ranging from early clinical changes to extensive cavitation. The system meets the requirements of validity and reliability and it is reliable in permanent teeth and acceptable in primary teeth. Moreover, it is suitable for use in clinical trials for assessing the efficacy or effectiveness of caries control agents. Hence, in today’s context the ICDAS recording system appears to be the best for the diagnoses and assessment of dental caries.
Dear Alok Dubey ,
Check the link
www.icdas.org/uploads/Rationale%20and%20Evidence%20ICDAS%20II%20September%2011-1.pdf
I thank u all 4 ur views; especially Damle sir for a detailed description & Nirmala ma'm for the link
I think ICDAS is good for dental caries severity/progress while PUFA and PRS are good for consequences of untreated caries. PUFA shows the volume of untreated caries which will play a key role in legislation, PRS went ahead to give information regarding the treatment need.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction