Castro Ana Luiza Sarno, Vianna Maria Isabel Pereira, Mendes Carlos Maurício Cardeal
Department of Health, State University of Feira de Santana, Transnordestina, s/n, Novo Horizonte, Feira de Santana, Bahia, CEP 44036-900, Brazil.
Department of Public Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia, Araújo Pinho, 62, Canela, Salvador, Bahia, CEP 40110040, Brazil.
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Jul 6;18(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0583-6.
Although dental caries is a globally widespread disease, there is no consensus regarding the method that should be used for their detection. In recent decades, a variety of new methods have been proposed for measuring caries in a population. Three caries detection methods, the decayed, missing and filled (DMF) index, the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) and the Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST), were compared to provide information to guide future method choices.
This was a descriptive, cross-sectional study in which three methods were used to measure caries in students, staff and their dependents at UNEB (State University of Bahia), Salvador, Brazil. We compared the mean application time of each method and the frequencies obtained by each method using the following indicators: the most severe caries lesion per individual; the mean number of missing, filled and decayed teeth; and the disease extent.
The mean time taken to apply the DMF was 3.8 min; for ICDAS, it took 8.9 min, and for CAST, 4.7 min. When calculating the indicator the most severe caries lesion per individual, the prevalence rates were as follows: 28.1% for DMF, 84.0% for ICDAS and 75.0% for CAST. The mean numbers of decayed, missing and filled teeth were 6.0 according to the DMF, 6.2 according to ICDAS and 5.9 according to CAST. When the disease extension indicator was used, the following percentages of teeth were affected by caries: DMF 22.12%, ICDAS 49.11% and CAST 33.2%.
The DMF underestimated the occurrence of caries lesions in individuals but was the fastest method to apply. ICDAS obtained detailed information regarding lesion severity, but it was a time-consuming method and difficult to analyse. CAST described disease distributions very well and identified lesion severities and preventive and curative needs in the examined group, and the time required to apply CAST was similar to that of the DMF.
尽管龋齿是一种全球广泛流行的疾病，但对于其检测方法尚无共识。近几十年来，已提出多种用于测量人群中龋齿的新方法。比较了三种龋齿检测方法，即龋失补（DMF）指数、国际龋齿检测与评估系统（ICDAS）和龋齿评估谱与治疗（CAST），以提供信息指导未来的方法选择。
这是一项描述性横断面研究，在巴西萨尔瓦多的巴伊亚州立大学（UNEB），使用三种方法对学生、教职员工及其家属的龋齿情况进行测量。我们比较了每种方法的平均应用时间以及每种方法使用以下指标获得的频率：个体最严重的龋损；缺失、充填和龋坏牙齿的平均数；以及疾病范围。
应用DMF的平均时间为3.8分钟；ICDAS为8.9分钟，CAST为4.7分钟。计算个体最严重龋损这一指标时，患病率如下：DMF为28.1%，ICDAS为84.0%，CAST为75.0%。根据DMF，龋坏、缺失和充填牙齿的平均数为6.0；根据ICDAS为6.2；根据CAST为5.9。使用疾病扩展指标时，受龋齿影响的牙齿百分比分别为：DMF 22.12%，ICDAS 49.11%，CAST 33.2%。
DMF低估了个体龋损的发生率，但却是应用最快的方法。ICDAS获得了有关病损严重程度的详细信息，但该方法耗时且难以分析。CAST很好地描述了疾病分布，并确定了检查组中的病损严重程度以及预防和治疗需求，应用CAST所需的时间与DMF相似。
