4.5 Article

Correlation between the caries status of the first permanent molars and the overall DMFT Index: A cross-sectional study

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 99, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019061

关键词

adolescents; dental caries; DMFT Index; first permanent molars; oral health

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education in Mexico through its Advanced Training Program for the Professional Development of Educational Staff (PRODEP)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To analyze whether a correlation exists between the caries status (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth, DMFT Index) of the first permanent molars (FPMs) and that of the full permanent dentition of Mexican adolescents, and to propose its use in large epidemiological studies of dental caries.We conducted a cross-sectional study of 1538 adolescents from 12 to 15 years old. Based on a clinical oral examination, we determined the DMFT Indices of their FPMs (FPM-DMFT) and of their full permanent dentition (comprehensive DMFT Index). We explored each FPM to determine whether it was with or without caries, filled, missing or sealed. For our statistical analysis, we used Fisher exact test and Spearman correlation in Stata software.After examining a total of 6157 FPMs, we found that 56.8% of our sample of adolescents had no caries in their 4 FPMs whereas 4.9% experienced caries in all 4. No significant differences emerged by sex (P>.05); however, by age, the older adolescents experienced greater FPM-DMFT (P<.05). Analysis yielded a correlation of r=0.8693 between the FPM-DMFT and comprehensive DMFT scores (P<.0001) of participants. The underestimation of caries prevalence (DMFT>0) was 5.4% (48.6% vs 43.2%), while the DMFT Index was underestimated at 0.34 (1.15 vs 0.81).The strong correlation between the FPM-DMFT and comprehensive DMFT Indices suggests that overall caries status can be inferred on the basis of FPM caries status. This evidence is useful when conducting large epidemiological studies such as national surveys.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据