Dental indices

1

Dental IndicesUsed for recording oral diseases in children mainly dental caries, periodontal diseases, fluorosis and malocclusion

Dr Darpan NenavaPg 3rd yr

2

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Definitions

3. Classification of index

4. Ideal requisites of an index

5. Objectives and uses of index

6. Oral hygiene and plaque index

• OHI

• OHI-S

• Patient Hygiene Performance

• Plaque index

• Turesky, Gilmore, Glickman

modification of the Quigley Hein plaque

index

3

7. Gingival and periodontal

disease indices• Gingival index

• Periodontal index

• CPITN

8. Caries index• DMF

• def

• Stone’s Index

• Caries severity index

• Dental caries severity index for

primary teeth

• Functional measure index

• Tissue health index

• Dental health index

• Index by J Murray and A Shaw

• PUFA index

9. Indices used in dental fluorosis• Deans fluorosis

• Community fluorosis index

• Thylstrup – Fejerskov Classification of

fluorosis

• Developmental defects of index

4

10. Malocclusion index

• IOTN

• PAR index

11. Points to remember

12. References

5

Introduction

Unless you can count it, weigh it or express it in a

quantitative fashion, you have scarcely begun to think

about the disease in a scientific fashion.

Lord Kelvin

6

The teeth and their surrounding structures are so definite, so easy to

observe, and carry with them, so much of their previous disease

history, that the measurement of dental diseases is much easier than

the measurement of any other forms of the disease.

7

Definitions• Index is a graduated scale having upper and lower limits , with scores

on the scale corresponding to specific criteria which is designed to

permit and facilitate comparison with other population classified by

same criteria and methods. – Russel AL

• Epidemiological indices are attempts to quantitate clinical condition

on a graduated scale, thereby facilitating comparison among

populations examined by the same criteria and methods. – Irving

Glickman

8

An index is an expression of clinical observation in numeric values. It is

used to describe the status of the individual or group with respect to a

condition being measured. The use of numeric scale and a standardized

method for interpreting observations of a condition results in an index

score that is more consistent and less subjective than a word

description of that condition. – Esther M Wilkins

9

Oral indices are essentially set of values, usually numerical with

maximum and minimum limits, used to describe the variables or a

specific conditions on a graduated scale, which use the same criteria

and method to compare a specific variable in individuals, samples or

populations with that same variables as is found in other individuals,

samples or populations. – George P Barnes

10

Classification of index

• Based upon the direction in which their scores can fluctuate

• Upon the extent to which the areas of oral cavity are measured

• According to the entity they measure

• General indices

11

Based on the direction in which their scores can fluctuate:

• Reversible index: Measures condition that can be changed e.g.

periodontal index

• Irreversible index: Index that measures conditions that will not

change e.g. dental caries

12

Depending upon the extent to which areas of oral cavity are measured :

• Full mouth indices: Patient’s entire periodontium or dentition is

measured. e.g. OHI

• Simplified indices: Measure only a representative sample of the

dental apparatus. e.g. OHI-S

13

According to the entity which they measure :

• Disease Index : “D” decay portion of the DMF index is the best

example of disease index

• Symptom Index : Measuring gingival or sulcular bleeding are

essentially examples of symptom indices

• Treatment Index : “F” filled portion of DMFT index is the best

example for treatment index

14

General Indices :

• Simple index: Index that measures the presence or absence of a

condition. E.g. plaque index

• Cumulative index: Index that measures all the evidence of a

condition, past and present. E.g. DMF index

15

Ideal Requisites of an Index

• Simplicity:• Should be easy to apply so that there is no undue time lost during

field examinations.• No expensive equipment should be needed.

• Objectivity:• Criteria for the index should be clear and unambiguous, with

mutually exclusive categories.

16

• Validity:

• Must measure what it is intended to measure, so it should

correspond with the clinical stages of the disease under study at

each point.

• 2 components –

• Sensitivity : ability to detect the condition when it is present.

• Specificity: ability to not detect the condition when it is absent.

17

• Reliability:

• Should measure consistently at different times and under a variety

of conditions.

• 2 components-

• Inter examiner reliability: different examiners record the same result.

• Intra examiner reliability: same examiner records the same result at

repeated attempts.

• Precision:

• Ability to distinguish between small increments.

18

• Acceptability

• Safe and not demeaning to the subject.

• Quantifiability

• The index should be amenable to statistical analysis and

interpretable.

19

Objectives and Uses of Index

• For individual patient

• In research

• In community health

20

For Individual Patient

• Provide individual assessment to help patient recognize an oral problem

• Reveal degree of effectiveness of present oral hygiene practices

• Motivation in preventive and professional care for control and

elimination of diseases

21

In Research

• Determine base line data before experimental factors are introduced

• Measure the effectiveness of specific agents for prevention control or

treatment of oral condition

• Measure the effectiveness of mechanical devices for personal care

22

In Community Health

• Shows prevalence and incidence of a condition

• Base line data for existing dental practices

• Assess the need of the community

• Compare the effects of a community program and evaluate the results

23

INDICES USED FOR ORAL HYGIENE ASSESSMENT• ORAL HYGIENE INDEX

• SIMPLIFIED ORAL HYGIENE INDEX

• PATIENT HYGIENE PERFORMANCE

• TURESKY, GILMORE, GLICKMAN MODIFICATION OF THE QUIGLEY HEIN PLAQUE INDEX

24

ORAL HYGIENE INDEX (OHI)• Developed in 1960

• John C. Green and Jack R. Vermillion in order to classify and assess oral

hygiene status.

• Simple and sensitive method for assessing group or individual oral

hygiene quantitatively.

• It is composed of 2 components:

• Debris index (DI)

• Calculus index (CI)

25

RULES OF ORAL HYGIENE INDEX

1 Only fully erupted permanent teeth are scored.

2 Third molars and incompletely erupted teeth are not scored because of the wide variations in heights of clinical crowns.

3 The buccal and lingual debris scores are both taken on the tooth in a segment having the greatest surface area covered by debris.

4 The buccal and lingual calculus scores are both taken on the tooth in a segment having the greatest surface area covered by supragingival and subgingival calculus.

26

0 – no debris or stain present

1 – soft debris covering not more than 1/3rd the tooth surface, or presence of extrinsic stains without other debris regardlessof the area covered

2 – soft debris covering more than 1/3rd, but not more than 2/3rd,of the exposed tooth surface

3 – soft debris covering more than 2/3rd of the exposed tooth surface

DEBRIS INDEX

27

SCORE CRITERIA

0 No calculus present

1 Supragingival calculus covering not more than 1/3 of the exposed tooth surface

2 Supragingival calculus covering more than 1/3 but not more than 2/3 the exposed tooth surface or presence of individual flecks of subgingival calculus around the cervical portion of the tooth or both.

3 Supragingival calculus covering more than 2/3 the exposed tooth surface or a continuous heavy band of subgingival calculus around the cervical portion of tooth or both.

Supragingivalcalculus

Subgingivalcalculus

CALCULUS INDEX

28

Calculation• DI = B.S + L.S / No. of seg

• CI = B.S + L.S / No. of seg

• OHI = DI + CI

• DI and CI range from 0-6

• Maximum score for all segments can be 36 for debris or calculus

• OHI range from 0-12

• Higher the OHI, poorer is the oral hygiene of patient

29

SIMPLIFIED ORAL HYGIENE INDEX

• John C Greene and Jack R Vermillion in 1964.

• Only fully erupted permanent teeth are scored.

• Natural teeth with full crown restorations and surfaces reduced in height by caries or trauma are not scored.

• An alternate tooth is then examined.

30

16 17,18

11 21

26 27,28

36 37,38

31 41

46 47,48

31

Calculation and Interpretation

• DI -S= Total score/ no of surfaces

• CI-S= Total score/ no of surfaces

• OHI -S= DI-S+ CI-S

• DI-S and CI-S range from 0-3

• OHI-S range from 0-6

• INTERPRETATION

• DI –S and CI-S

• Good -0.0-0.6• Fair – 0.7-1.8• Poor – 1.9 -3.0

• OHI –S

• Good - 0.0-1.2• Fair – 1.3- 3.0• Poor – 3.0 -6.0

32

Uses

• Widely used in epidemiological studies of periodontal diseases.

• Useful in evaluation of dental health education programs

• Evaluating the efficacy of tooth brushes.

• Evaluate an individual’s level of oral cleanliness.

33

PATIENT HYGIENE PERFORMANCE (PHP INDEX)• Introduced by Podshadley A.G. and Haley J.V in 1968.• Assessments are based on 6 index teeth.• The extent of plaque and debris over a tooth surface was determined.

16 buccal

11 labial

26 buccal

36 lingual

31 labial

46 lingual

34

• PROCEDURE:• Apply a disclosing agent before scoring.• Patient is asked to swish for 30 sec and then expectorate but not rinse.• Examination is made by using a mouth mirror.

• Each of the 5 subdivisions is scored for presence of stained debris:• 0= no debris(or questionable)• 1= debris definitely present.

MMI

D

M

O/I

G

35

• Debris score for individual tooth: • Add the scores for each of the 5 subdivisions.

• PHP index for an individual : • Total score for all the teeth divided by the number of teeth examined.

• RATING SCORES:• Excellent : 0 (no debris)• Good : 0.1-1.7• Fair : 1.8 – 3.4• Poor : 3.5 – 5.0

Debris score for 1 tooth = 4/5 = 0.8

1

1

1 1

0

36

Plaque index

• Silness and Loe in 1964

• Assesses the thickness of plaque at the cervical margin of the tooth

closest to the gums

• All four surfaces are examined

• Distal

• Mesial

• Lingual

• Buccal

12

2416

44

32

36

37

Scoring Criteria

Score Criteria

0 No Plaque

1A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival margin and adjacent area of tooth the plaque may be seen in situ only after application of disclosing solution or by using probe on tooth surface

2Moderate accumulation of soft deposits within the gingival pocket, or the tooth and gingival margin which can be seen with the naked eye

3 Abundance of soft matter within the gingival pocket and/or on the tooth and gingival margin

38

Calculation • Plaque index for area : 0-3 for each surface.

• Plaque index for a tooth : Scores added and then divided by four.

• Plaque index for group of teeth : Scores for individual teeth are added and

then divided by number of teeth.

• Plaque index for the individual : Indices for each of the teeth are added

and then divided by the total number of teeth examined.

• Plaque index for group : All indices are taken and divided by number of

individual

39

Interpretation of Plaque index

Rating Scores

Excellent 0

Good 0.1-0.9

Fair 1.0-1.9

Poor 2.0-3.0

40

Uses

• Reliable technique for evaluating both mechanical anti plaque

procedures and chemical agents.

• Used in longitudinal studies and clinical trials.

41

TURESKY, GILMORE, GLICKMAN MODIFICATION OF THE QUIGLEY HEIN PLAQUE INDEX

• Quigley and Hein in 1962 reported a plaque measurement that

focused on the gingival third of the tooth surface. Only facial surfaces

of the anterior teeth were examined after using basic fuchsin

mouthwash as a disclosing agent.

• The Quigley - Hein plaque index was modified by Turesky, Gilmore and

Glickman in 1970.

42

0 – no plaque1 – separate flecks of plaque at the cervical margin of tooth.2 – thin continuous band of plaque ( up to 1 mm)3 – band of plaque wider than 1 mm but covering less than 1/3rd of the crown of the tooth.4 – plaque covering at least 1/3rd but less than 2/3rd of the crown of the tooth.5 - plaque covering 2/3rd or more of the crown of the tooth.

43

• Plaque is assessed on the labial, buccal and lingual surfaces of all the

teeth after using a disclosing agent.

• The scores of the gingival 1/3rd area was also redefined.

• Provides a comprehensive method for evaluating anti plaque

procedures such as tooth brushing, flossing as well as chemical anti

plaque agents.

• The index is based on a numerical score of 0 to 5.

44

Gingival and periodontal disease

indices• Gingival index

• Periodontal index

• CPITN

45

Gingival Index

• Developed by Loe H and Silness J in 1963.

• One of the most widely accepted and used gingival indices.

• Assess the severity of gingivitis and its location in 4 possible areas.

• Mesial

• Lingual

• Distal

• Facial

• Only qualitative changes are assessed.

46

METHOD:

• All surfaces of all teeth or selected teeth or selected surface of all teeth or

selected teeth are scored.

• The selected teeth as the index teeth are 16,12,24,36,32,44.

• The teeth and gingiva are first dried with a blast of air and/or cotton rolls.

• The tissues are divided into 4 gingival scoring units: disto facial papilla, facial

margin, mesio facial papilla and entire lingual margin.

• A blunt periodontal probe is used to assess the bleeding potential of the tissues.

47

SCORE CRITERIA

0 Absence of inflammation/normal gingiva

1Mild inflammation, slight change in color, slight edema, no bleeding on

probing

2Moderate inflammation, moderate

glazing, redness, edema and hypertrophy. bleeding on probing

3Severe inflammation, marked

redness and hypertrophy ulceration. Tendency to spontaneous bleeding.

48

Calculation and Interpretation• If the scores around each tooth are totaled and divided by the number

of surfaces per tooth examined (4), the gingival index score for the tooth

is obtained.

• Totaling all of the scores per tooth and dividing by the number of teeth

examined provides the gingival index score for individual.

• Interpretation:

• 0.1 - 1.0 : Mild gingivitis

• 1.1 – 2.0 : Moderate gingivitis

• 2.1 – 3.0 : Severe gingivitis

49

Modified Gingival Index

• Developed by Lobene, Weatherford, Ross, Lamm and Menaker in 1986.

• Assess the prevalence and severity of gingivitis.

• Strictly based on non invasive approach i.e. visual examination only without any

probing.

• To obtain MGI , labial and lingual surfaces of the gingival margins and the

interdental papilla of all erupted teeth except 3rd molars are examined and

scored.

50

0• Normal

(absence of inflammation)

1• Mild

inflammation (slight change in color, little change in texture) of any portion of the gingival unit

2• Mild

inflammation of the entire gingival unit

3• Moderate

inflammation (moderate glazing, redness, edema, and/or hypertrophy) of the gingival unit.

4• Severe

inflammation (marked redness and edema/hypertrophy, spontaneous bleeding, or ulceration) of the gingival unit.

51

Periodontal Index

• Developed by Rusell AI in 1956.

• It was once widely used in epidemiological surveys but not used much

now because of introduction of new periodontal indices and

refinement of criteria.

• The PI is reported to be useful among large populations, but it is of

limited use for individuals or small groups.

52

• All the teeth are examined in this index.

• Russell chose the scoring values as 0,1,2,6,8 in order to relate the stage

of the disease in an epidemiological survey to the clinical conditions

observed.

• The Russell’s rule states that “ when in doubt assign the lower score.”

53

FIELD STUDIES CLINICAL STUDIES / RADIOGRAPHIC FINDINGS

0 Negative. Neither overt inflammation in the investing tissues nor loss of function due to destruction of supporting bone.

Radiographic appearance is essentially normal.

1 Mild gingivitis. An overt area of inflammation in the free gingiva does not circumscribe the tooth

2 Gingivitis. Inflammation completely circumscribe the tooth, but there is no apparent break in the epithelial attachment

4 Used only when radiographs are available. There is early notch like resorption of alveolar crest.

6 Gingivitis with pocket formation. The epithelial attachment is broken and there is a pocket. There is no interference with normal masticatory function; the tooth is firm in its socket and has not drifted.

There is horizontal bone loss involving the entire alveolar crest, up to half of the length of the tooth root.

8 Advanced destruction with loss of masticatory function. The tooth may be loose, may have drifted, may sound dull on percussion with metallic instrument, or may be depressible in its socket.

There is advanced bone loss involving more than half of the tooth root, or a definite intrabony pocket with widening of periodontal ligament. There may be root resorption or rarefaction at the apex.

54


• PI score per person = sum of individual scores no of teeth present

Clinical Condition Individual Scores

Clinical normally supportive tissue 0.0-0.2

Simple gingivitis 0.3-0.9

Beginning destructive periodontal diseases

1.0-1.9

Established destructive periodontal disease

2.0-4.9

Terminal disease 5.0-8.0

55

Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs

• The community periodontal index of treatment needs was developed

by the joint working committee of the WHO and FDI in 1982.

• Developed primarily to survey and evaluate periodontal treatment

needs rather than determining past and present periodontal status

i.e. recession of the gingival margin and alveolar bone.

56

• Treatment needs implies that the CPITN assesses only those conditions potentially

responsive to treatment, but not non treatable or irreversible conditions.

• Procedure :

• The mouth is divided into sextants :

17- 14 13- 23 24- 27

47 – 44 43- 33 34 – 37

• The 3rd molars are not included, except where they are functioning in place of 2nd molars.

• The treatment need in a sextant is recorded only if there are 2 or more teeth present in a

sextant and not indicated for extraction. If only one tooth remains in a sextant, then the

tooth is included in the adjoining sextant.

57

• Probing depth is recorded either on all the teeth in a sextant or only on

certain indexed teeth as recommended by WHO for epidemiological surveys.

• FOR ADULTS AGED > 20 yrs:

• 10 index teeth are taken into account :17 16 11 26 37 47 46 31 36 37.

• The molars are examined in pairs and only one score the highest score is recorded.

• For young people up to 19 yrs:

• Only 6 index teeth are examined : 16 11 26 46 31 36

• The second molars are excluded at these ages because of the high frequency of false

pockets (non inflammatory tooth eruption associated).

58

• When examining children less than 15 yrs pockets are not recorded

although probing for bleeding and calculus are carried out as a routine.

• CPITN PROBE :

• First described by WHO.

• Designed for 2 purposes :

• Measurement of pockets.

• Detection of sub-gingival calculus.

60

Codes and Criteria

CODE CRITERIA TREATMENT NEEDS

0 Healthy periodontium TN-0 No need of treatment

1 Bleeding observed during / after probing TN-1 Self care

2 Calculus or other plaque retentive factors seen or felt during probing

TN-2 Professional care

3 Pathological pocket 4-5 mm. gingival margin situated on black band of the probe.

TN-2 Scaling and root planning

4 Pathological pocket 6mm or more. Black band of the probe not visible

TN-3 Complex therapy by specially trained personnel

61

Caries Indices

• Dmf

• def

• Stone’s Index

• Caries severity index

• Dental caries severity index for

primary teeth

• Functional measure index

• Tissue health index

• Dental health index

• Index by J Murray and A Shaw

• PUFA index

62

DMF Index

• Bodecker CF and Bowdecker HWC 1931 gave term caries

• Henry Klein, Carrole E Palmer and JW Knutson 1938 gave DMF index

• Only permanent teeth

• 28 teeth are included

63

• Exclusion Criteria

• 3rd molar

• Teeth extracted

• Filled for any other reason than

caries

• Teeth restored for cosmetic reason

• Supernumerary teeth

• D – decayed• M – missing due to caries• F – filled teeth

64

Features of DMF

• Tooth is counted only once• Decayed, missing and filled teeth should be recorded separately• Recurrent caries is also counted as decay• Extraction indicated teeth are included in missing• Many restoration is counted as one score• Root stump is also scored• 1986 WHO modification includes 3rd molars• Cant be used in children• Not accurate• Overestimate caries

66

Limitations

• DMFT values are not related to the number of teeth at risk• Can be invalid in older patients because teeth can become lost for

reasons other than caries • Can be misleading in children whose teeth lost due to orthodontic

reasons• Can overestimate caries experience in teeth in which preventive filling

have been placed• Little use in root caries

67

def Index

• Gruebbel AD 1944 as an equivalent index to DMF for measuring dental caries in primary dentition

• d – Indicates the number of deciduous teeth decayed.• e – Indicates deciduous teeth extracted due to caries & indicated for Xn

• f – Indicates restored teeth without recurrent decay

69

Modifications

• dmf index • For children over 7 years and upto

11 – 12 years• Decayed, missing and filled

primary molar and canines have being used to determine dmft

• df index• Exfoliation problem• df is used missing are ignored• WHO in survey • dft index

• Mixed dentition• DMFT and deft are done separately and never added• Permanent teeth index is done first then deciduous separately

70

Stone’s Index

• Introduced by HH Stone, FE Lawton, ER Bransby and HO Hartley in 1949

71

Caries Severity Index

• Tank Certrude and Storvick Clara 1960

72

Dental Caries Severity Index for primary teeth• Designed by Aubrey Chosack 1985

Score Criteria

1 Early pit and fissure caries

2 Cavitation of 1mm

3 Cavitation with breakdown of half tooth

Occlusal surface

Score Criteria

1 White lesion not extending to embrasure

2 Cavitation of 1-2mm extending to one embrasure

3 Cavitation of 2 mm extending to both embrasures

Buccal-lingual and palatal smooth surface

Score Criteria

1 Discontinuity of enamel

2 Cavitation with breakdown of marginal ridge

3 Break down of marginal ridge to proximal extensions of occlusal surface

Proximal surfaces of molar

Score Criteria

1 Discontinuity of enamel

2 Cavitation with breakdown of buccal and lingual surface

3 Break down of incisal edge

Proximal surfaces of Incisors

73

Functional measure Index

• Sheiham, Maizels A, Maizels J in 1987• Filled and sound teeth are measured while decayed and missing teeth

is given zero

FMI = (Filled + Sound) / 28

74

Tissue health Index

• Sheiham, Maizels A, Maizels J in 19871 – decayed 2 – filled 4 – sound

Tissue health index (THI) = ¼(1*decayed+2*filled+4*sound)/28Third molars are excludedScore ranges from 0 – 1

75

Dental health Index

• JJ Carpay, FHM Nieman, KG Konig, AJA Felling and JGM Lammers in 1968

• Sound teeth were given a score of +1 affected teeth a score of -1

DHI = sound teeth – (decayed + filled +missing teeth)/ sound teeth + decayed + filled + missing teeth

Score ranges from – 1 to + 1

76

Clinical and radiographic Index by J Murray and A Shaw in 1975

77

PUFA Index

• Jindal M and Khan S in 2012

• Assess the presence of oral conditions resulting from untreated caries

both in primary and permanent dentition

• Upper case for permanent and lower case for primary dentition

• Assessment is made visually without any instrument

78

Denotation Criteria

P/p Pulp exposure is recorded when an opening of pulp chamber is visible (grossly decayed)

U/u Ulceration of soft tissue of tongue or mucosa by sharp edges of dislocated decayed carious tooth

F/f Fistula is recorded with pus releasing sinus in relation to exposed tooth

A/a Abscess is recorded with pus containing swelling in relation to exposed tooth

79


PUFA/pufa = (filled + sound)* 100 /D+d

Higher scores indicates dental treatment is neglected either due to lack

of knowledge, facility available, cost and importance of dentition.

Advantages

• Easy to use

• No instruments required

• Used for planning monitoring and implementing oral health programs

keeping in view cause of negligence

80

Dental Fluorosis Index

• DENTAL FLUOROSIS : is a hypoplasia or hypo-mineralisation of

tooth enamel or dentine produced by the chronic ingestion of

excessive amounts of fluoride during the period when teeth are

developing.

81

CLASSIFICATION OF FLUOROSIS MEASURING INDICES

FLUOROSIS SPECIFIC

• THYLSTRUP AND FERJESKOV

• DEAN’S INDEX

DESCRIPTIVE

• DEVELOPMENTAL DEFECTS OF ENAMEL INDEX

82

DEAN’S FLUOROSIS INDEX• 1934; TRENDLEY H.DEAN devised

an index for assessing the presence and severity of mottled enamel.

SALIENT FEATURES

The fluorosis index set criteria for

categorization of dental fluorosis on a

7point scale.

Although no numbers were used it was

considered to be on ordinal scale.

Children who had not lived in the community

continuously or had obtained domestic

water from other than public supply are

eliminated

Under his classification all those showing

hypoplasia other than mottling of enamel

were placed in normal category

83

84

METHOD ( as implied by DEAN)

Each individual receives a score corresponding to clinical appearance of two most affected teeth

• Examinations are made in good natural light with the subject sitting facing the window

No specific information as to whether the teeth were cleaned or dried before examination is given

• Mouth mirror and probes were utilized for examination.

CLASSIFICATION AND CRITERIANORMAL

• The enamel represents the usual translucency semi-vitriform type of structure• The surface is smooth, glossy and usually of pale creamy white color

QUESTIONABLE

• Slight aberrations in translucency of normal enamel ranging from few white flecks to occasional white spots, 1-2mm in diameter.

VERY MILD

• Small, opaque, paper white areas are scattered irregularly or streaked over the tooth surface• Observed on labial and buccal surfaces ; <25% of teeth surface involved.• Small pitted white areas are frequently found on summits of cusps• No brown stain

MILD

• White opaque areas involve half of tooth surface.• Surfaces of cuspids n bicuspids prone to attrition show thin white layers worn off and bluish shades of normal

enamel• Faint brown stains are apparent

MODERATE

• No change in form of tooth but all surfaces are involved• Surfaces subjected to attrition are definitely marked• Minute pitting is present on buccal n labial surfaces

MODERATELY SEVERE

• Smoky white appearance• Pitting is more frequent and generally seen on all surfaces• Brown stain if present has more hue and involves all surfaces

SEVERE

• Form of teeth are affected.• Pits are deeper and confluent• Stains are widespread and range from chocolate brown to almost black

87

Based on this index, Dean. Dixon and Cohen(1935) proposed that their classification should determine a mottled enamel index of a community for epidemiological purpose

Negative

Borderline

Slight

Medium

Rather marked

Very marked

89

USES

• Most widely used index to measure dental fluorosis.• Helped to indicate prevalence of moderate to severe fluorosis in many

communities asSweden by Forsman in 1974Austria by Binder in 1973England by Murray et al(1956), Forrest (1965), Goward (1976)USA by Galagan and Lamson (1953)India by Nanda et al (1974)

90

• The National Survey of Children’s Dental Health in Ireland in 1984 measured fluorosis using Dean’s index to provide baseline data for future reference.

( Whelton HP;Ketley CE;Mcsweeny F;O’Mullane DM;2004)• National Fluorosis Survey in USA in 1986-87 to note baseline values

was done using Dean’s index.

91

LIMITATIONS

• Does not give sufficient information on distribution of fluorosis within the dentition.

• Isolated defects are not recorded.• The distinction amongst the categories is unclear, indistinct and

lacking sensitivity.• Even though Dean’s scale is ordinal , it involves averaging of the

scores which is inappropriate. (A. Rizan Mohamed,W. Murray Thomson;Timothy D. Mackay, An epidemiological comparison of Dean’s index and the Developmental Defects

of Enamel (DDE) index; JPHD ISSN 0022-4006)

92

COMMUNITY FLUOROSIS INDEX

• 1942 , based on the revised fluorosis index scale , he developed a scoring system so as to derive a COMMUNITY FLUOROSIS INDEX .

• On basis of the number and distribution of individual scores, a community index for dental fluorosis (Fci) can be calculated by the formula

Fci = sum of no. of individuals * statistical weights)/ no. of individuals examined

93

0.0 – 0.4 0.4 – 0.5 0.5 – 1.0 1.0 – 2.0 2.0 – 3.0 3.0 – 4.0

• Negative

• Borderline

• Slight

• Medium

• Marked

• Very Marked

RANGE OF SCORES FOR CFI

SIGNIFICANCE

94

• It gives an indication of public health significance of fluorosis.

• It was used by Galagan and Lamson (1953) in their investigation of

climate and endemic fluorosis.

• Minoguchi (1970) refined the above analysis to take into account the

total fluoride content from the diet by a community.

• Myers(1978) suggested a graphic method of obtaining optimal

fluoride concentration by comparing CFI against water fluoride

content at different temperatures.

95

THYLSTRUP – FEJERSKOV CLASSIFICATION OF FLUOROSIS

• 1978 ; Thylstrup and Frejeskov suggested a 10point classification

system designed to categorize the degree of fluorosis affecting

buccal/lingual and occlusal surfaces.

96

SALIENT FEATURES

Examination is done on a portable chair

out in daylight.

Plane mirror n probes are used

Prior to examination the teeth are dried

with cotton wool rolls

97

THYLSTRUP – FEJERSKOV CLASSIFICATION OF FLUOROSIS

98

Advantages

• It attempts to validate the visual appearance against the histological defect.

• Most sensitive of all fluorosis measuring indices.

• Granath et al. (1985), comparing the DEAN and T-F indexes, concluded that

the latter was more detailed and sensitive because it was based on biological

aspects where there is an increase in hypo mineralization with a simultaneous

increase in the depth of the enamel surface in direction of the amelo-dentin

junction.

99

• Cleaton-Jones and Hargreaves (1990) compared the two fluorosis

indexes (DEAN and T-F) in deciduous dentition, reporting that the

prevalence of fluorosis in individual teeth was more frequently

diagnosed with the T-F index. They concluded that the T-F index is the

most indicated for work where detailed information about the

problem is required.

100

USES

• To assess the impact of enamel fluorosis in three communities

examined in project FLINT.( Sigourjon’s H et al 2004)

• Burger et al. (1987), recommended the T-F index for future field

studies, due to the facility of use and better defined criteria.

101

Disadvantages

• Clarkson (1989) reported that in TF index drying of teeth creates an

unnatural situation due to which changes in score 1 and 2 are very

minor.

The aesthetic significance of these changes are questionable.

102

DEVELOPMENTAL DEFECTS OF INDEX• The developmental defects of enamel was developed by “ FDI –

Commission on Oral Health, Research and Epidemiology” in 1982 to avoid need for diagnosing fluorosis before recording enamel opacities.

103

PROCEDURE

Tooth surface is inspected visually

and defective areas are tactilely explored

with a probe.

Natural or artificial light

Teeth should receive a prophylaxis and be

dried at time of examination

104

CODING AND CRITERIA

• Un-erupted, missing, heavily restored , grossly decayed , fractured teeth and teeth or tooth surfaces which for any other reason cannot be classified with defects must be coded ‘X’.

• Permanent teeth are number coded.• Primary teeth are letter coded.• When in doubt the tooth surface should be scored ‘normal’.• When an abnormality is present but cannot be classified into listed

categories, it should be scored as ‘other defects’.

105

TYPE OF DEFECT

•OPACITY•HYPOPLASIA•DISCOLORATION

NUMBER

•SINGLE•MULTIPLE

DEMARCATION

•DEMARCATED•DIFFUSE

LOCATION OF DEFECTS

•GINGIVAL OR INCISAL HALF•OCCLUSAL•CUSPAL•WHOLE SURFACE

106

MODIFICATIONS

• Clarkson J.J and O’Mullane D.M in 1985 modified the DDE to be used in one of the two manners

General purpose epidemiology studies

Screening surveys

107

General purpose epidemiological studies

• NORMAL

• DEMARCATED OPACITY• White/cream• Yellow/brown

• DIFFUSE OPACITY• Diffuse lines• Diffuse patchy• Diffuse confluent

• Confluent +Staining+loss Of Enamel

• Code 0

• Code 1• Code 2

• Code 3• Code 4• Code 5

• Code 6

• HYPOPLASIA• Pits• Missing enamel• ANY OTHER DEFECTS

• Code 7

• Code 8

• Code 9

108

Extent of defect

• Normal• < 1/3rd

• At least 1/3rd < 2/3rd

• At least 2/3rd

• Code 0• Code 1• Code 2• Code 3

109

Screening surveys

• NORMAL• DEMARCATED OPACITY• DIFFUSE OPACITY• HYPOPLASIA PITS• OTHER DEFECTS

• CODE 1• CODE 2• CODE 3• CODE 4• CODE 5

110

Dental Developmental Index modified in 1989

111

Malocclusion Indices

• Index for Orthodontic Treatment Needs (IOTN)

• Peer Assessment Rate Index (PAR)

112

Index For Orthodontic Treatment Needs (IOTN)

• P.H. Brook and W.C. Shaw 1989

• Two components

• Functional and dental health component (DHC)

• Aesthetic component (AC)

113

Dental Health component (DHC)

Grade 5 – Very Great• Defects of CLCP• Over jet more than 9mm• Reverse over jet >3.5mm speech

problem• Impeded eruption• Extensive hypodontia

Grade 4 – Great• Over jet 6-9mm• Reverse over jet >3.5mm no speech

problem• Cross bites with 2mm displacement

between contact and retruded position• Severe displacement of teeth >4mm• Lateral or open bite >4mm• Overbite causing indentation on the palate

or labial gingivae• Referred by colleague for collaborative care• Less extensive hypodontia

114

Grade 3 – Moderate

• Over jet >3.5mm <6mm incompetent lips

• Reverse over jet >1mm ≤3.5mm

• Overbite without indentation or signs of

trauma

• Cross bite with ≤2mm and >1mm

displacement between retruded and

intercuspal position

• Open bite >2mm but ≤4mm

• Moderate displacement of teeth with >2mm

but ≤ 4mm

Grade 2 – Little

• Over jet >3mm ≤6mm competent lips

• Reverse over jet >0mm ≤1mm

• Increased over bite >3.5mm no gingival

contact

• Cross bite ≤1mm displacement between

retruded and intercuspal position

• Open bites >1mm ≤2mm

• Pre or post normal occlusion with no

abnormalities

• Mild displacement of teeth >1mm ≤2mm

115

Aesthetic Component (AC)

• A patient score is based on matching his/her dental appearance with one of a series of 10 photographs showing labial aspect of different class 1 class 2 malocclusion ranked according to there attractiveness

• 0.5 being the most attractive and 5.0 being the least attractive.

0.5 most attractiv

e1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

5.0 least attractiv

e

116

Peer Assessment Rating Index (PAR)

• Index of treatment standards

• S Richmond, W.C. Shaw, K.D. O’Brien, I.B. Buchanan, R Jones, C.D.

Stephens, C.T. Roberts, M Andrews in 1992

• To measure the malocclusion assess the outcome of orthodontic

treatment at any stage

117

It has 11 components

1. Upper right segment2. Upper anterior segment3. Upper left segment4. Lower right segment5. Lower anterior segment6. Lower left segment

7. Right buccal occlusion 8. Over jet9. Over bite10. Centre line 11. Left buccal occlusion

118

Procedure• Pre and post treatment cast are taken• PAR ruler specially designed ruler to facilitate scoring

119

Anterior and buccal segments

• Arches divided into three segments scores recorded for both upper and lower arch • Buccal recording zone is from mesial anatomical contact point of the 1st permanent molar

to the distal contact point of the canine.• Anterior recording zone is mesial contact point of canine to the mesial point on other

side• Occlusal traits recorded are crowding, spacing, and impacted teeth• A tooth is considered and scored “impacted” when the space is ≤ 4mm• Impacted canines are recorded in anterior segment• Displacement and impacted scores are added to obtain an overall score for each

recording segment • In mixed dentition if there is potential for crowding average mesio-distal width are used

to calculate space deficiency

120

Anterior and buccal segments displacement scores

Score Discrepancy

0 0mm to 1mm

1 1.1mm to 2mm

2 2.1mm to 4mm

3 4.1mm to 8mm

4 Greater than 8mm

5 Impacted teeth

Mixed dentition crowding assessment using average mesio-distal widths

Upper

Canine 8mm

First molar 7mm

Second molar 7mm

Total = 22mm (impaction ≤ 18mm)

Lower

Canine 7mm

First molar 7mm

Second molar 7mm

Total = 21mm (impaction ≤ 17mm)

121

Buccal occlusion• The recording zone is from canine to last molar present

Antero-posterior :

Score Discrepancy

0 Good interdigitation class 1,2 and 3

1 Less than half unit discrepancy

2 Half unit discrepancy cusp to cusp

Vertical :

Score Discrepancy

0 No discrepancy in inter cuspation

1 Lateral open bite on at least two teeth >2mm

Transverse :

Score Discrepancy

0 No cross bite

1 Cross bite tendency

2 Single tooth in cross bite

3 More than one tooth in cross bite

4 More than one tooth in scissor bite

122

Over jet measurements

• Include positive over jet and cross bite

• Recording zone is from left lateral incisor to right lateral incisor and is scored from most

prominent feature of any one incisor when assessing over jet PAR ruler is placed parallel is

placed parallel to occlusal plane and radial to the line of arch scores for over jet and cross bite

are totaled for the over all over jet scores.Over jet measurements

Score Discrepancy

0 0 – 3 mm

1 3.1 – 5 mm

2 5.1 – 7 mm

3 7.1 – 9 mm

4 > 9mm

Anterior Cross-Bite

Score Discrepancy

0 No discrepancy

1 One or more teeth edge to edge

2 One single tooth in cross bite

3 2 teeth in cross bite

4 >2 teeth in cross bite

123

Over bite measurements

• It is a vertical overlap or open bite of anterior teeth in relation to coverage of lower

incisors or the degree of open bite

• Recording zone includes lateral incisors and the tooth with greatest overlap is recorded

• Cross bites including canines are recorded in anterior segmentsOver bite measurements

Score Discrepancy

0 No open bite

1 Open bite ≤ 1mm

2 1.1 – 2 mm

3 2.1 – 3 mm

4 ≥ 4 mm

Over bite

Score Discrepancy

0 No discrepancy

1 One or more teeth edge to edge

2 One single tooth in cross bite

3 2 teeth in cross bite

4 >2 teeth in cross bite

124

Centre line Assessments

• The Centre line assessment is the centre line discrepancy in relation to the lower

central incisors

• If a lower central incisor has been extracted the measurement is not recorded

Centre line Assessments

Score Discrepancy

0 Coincident and up to one quarter lower incisor width

1 One quarter to one half lower incisor width

2 Greater than one half of lower incisor width

125

• Once the total score is obtained for all 11 segments the scores are summed to calculate the

over all PAR score

• 0 indicates excellent alignment and occlusion and higher scores rarely beyond 50, would

indicate increasing levels of alignment and malocclusion

• For determining outcome of the treatment, change indicates degree of improvement and

success of treatment

• Degree of improvement may also be determined using a nomogram

• A nomogram is divided into three segments

• Upper (worse or no change)

• Middle (improved)

• Lower (greatly improved)

126

PAR Index Guidelines

• General• Scoring is accumulative• No maximal cut off.• Occlusion should be scored disregarding functional displacement.• Contact points are not recorded between 1st 2nd 3rd molar however severe

deviations will produce a cross bite and will be noted in the buccal occlusion• If a contact point displacement is due to poor restorative work then not

included• Contact point between deciduous teeth not included• Extraction spaces not included if patient will receive prosthetic replacement,

however if space closure is intended then adjacent teeth are noted

127

• Canines

• Where there are missing canines displacements resulting from discrepancies between

the mesial contact point to the 1st premolar and the distal of the lateral incisor should

be recorded in the anterior segment.

• Canine cross bites should be recorded in the over jet segment

• Contact points between canines and premolars are scored as follows

• The distal contact point of canine to the midpoint on the mesial surface of the adjacent premolar.

• Impaction

• Unerupted or displaced from the line of the arch either buccally or palatally due to

insufficient space this is regarded as impaction

• If erupted n displaced displacement score is recorded

128

• Incisors

• Lost due to agenesis/ trauma/caries

• If for prosthesis adjacent teeth are not recorded

• If space is to be closed adjacent teeth are recorded

• In over jet when falling on line lower grade is recorded

• Lower incisor is extracted or missing centre line is not recorded

• Molars

• Contact points between 1st and 2nd molar are not recorded

• If 1st molar is extracted contact point of 2nd molar is recorded

129

Points to Remember

• Russel AL defines Index as a graduated scale having upper and lower

limits , with scores on the scale corresponding to specific criteria

which is designed to permit and facilitate comparison with other

population classified by same criteria and methods.

• Index used for evaluation of caries in primary dentition is ‘deft’ where

‘e’ stands for those deciduous teeth which are extracted due to caries

or even those teeth that are indicated for extraction

130

• Caries indices for permanent teeth and deciduous teeth have to be

done separately

• OHI-S most commonly used index

• Dean’s fluorosis index most commonly used index for fluorosis

131

Thank you

132

References

• Soben Peter. Indices in dental epidemiology. Essentials Of Preventive and Community Dentistry 3ed.123-231.

• Nikhil Marwah. Textbook of pediatric dentistry 3ed.1009-1018• Kinane DF, Lindhe J. Pathogenesis of periodontitis. In: Lindhe J, Karring

T, Lang NP, Eds. Clinical Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, 3rd ed. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1997, 189- 225.

• Brook, P.H.; Shaw, W.C. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur. J. Orthod. 1989, 11, 309-320

Dental indices

Education

Transcript of Dental indices