The knowledge and use of population-based methods for caries detection

Abstract

BackgroundSince the 1980s, a wide variety of methods have been proposed to measure dental caries in the population, demonstrating a lack of consensus regarding the procedure that should be used for this purpose. The current study investigated the methods that are known and used by public oral health researchers and professors as well as the reasons that lead to the choice of a particular method.MethodIn the context of an interview, a questionnaire was administered to public oral health researchers and professors who used caries indices and worked in Salvador and Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil from 2005 to 2015. A quantitative and descriptive approach was applied that adopted the multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) technique to assess the associations among responses.ResultsThe decayed, missing, and filled index (DMF) was the only measurement known by all respondents, and although 45 of the 47 professors/researchers were dissatisfied with this index, only six had used other methods. This index was chosen because of its comparability and ease of application. The MCA revealed response associations among older, male participants who graduated from the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA) and who continued to use this index because of its comparability and because it is the index recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS). Another group was also observed that consisted of younger females who graduated from the State University of Feira de Santana (UEFS) or another university and who used the DMF because it is well-known, simple, and easy to apply.ConclusionsThe DMF index was the most known and used method. Many respondents demonstrated a desire for change and were critical of the DMF; however, they did not know of and had not used newer methods for measuring dental caries. Greater importance should be placed on the problem of dental caries assessment in the population.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-018-0612-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prevalence of dental caries among children aged 5–15 years from 9 countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a meta-analysis

“…The most common dental caries indices used were WHO criteria 1987, 1997 and 2013 and the DMFT index proposed by Klein, Palmer and Knutson (1937). Castro et al (8) conducted an interview to investigate the populationbased caries detection methods and reported that DMFT index was the most known and used index. However, 95.7% were dissatisfied with the index yet continued to use it.…”

“…Along with prevalence, it is also essential to evaluate the various indices used in the published literature for assessing caries, as different indices give varying results within the same populations (7). For example, the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) considers even white spots as caries, while the traditional Decayed Missing and Filled (DMF) index ignores noncavitated enamel lesions, leading to underestimation of caries (8).…”

Cross‑cultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Indonesia version of the self‐efficacy oral health questionnaire for adolescents

“…Construct and discriminant validity was tested through associations and comparisons between the scores of the Indonesian version of the SEOH questionnaire and the global ratings using the Spearman's correlation coefficient and Kruskal‐Wallis test, respectively. Association between SEOH score and caries experience were tested to analyse external validity of caries existence as the health outcome …”

“…Association between SEOH score and caries experience were tested to analyse external validity of caries existence as the health outcome. 30,31…”

Dental Caries in Pakistan. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“…DMFT index is the most used index for measurement of dental caries at population level. According to Castro et al [49] most of the study participant was of the opinion to use some other index yet continued to use it as according to them, they could not found more reliable method of measurement of dental caries. Almost all indices have limitation.…”