使用国际龋病检测和评估系统的研究中的龋病报告：范围综述。

Caries reporting in studies that used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System: A scoping review.

机构信息

College of Dental Medicine, University of New England, Portland, ME, USA.

Georgian College of Applied Arts and Technology, Barrie, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;47(1):92-102. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12430. Epub 2018 Oct 18.

DOI:10.1111/cdoe.12430

PMID:30334280

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To explore how caries was reported in studies that employed the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS).

METHODS

A systematic database search up to August 2017 was carried out using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane library and ISI Web of Science electronic databases. Only studies that used the ICDAS for dental caries examinations were included. Studies were excluded if the examination was done only for the validation or the calibration of the ICDAS and/or if the examination was not done for the whole dentition. Measures used to report caries were considered.

RESULTS

A total of 126 papers met the inclusion criteria. Forty-four different synthesis measures were used to report caries. Most of the studies used a combination of multiple measures to report patient's caries level. These reporting measures cluster into four main groups: the number of individual ICDAS scores (ie, total counts of every score); the number of decayed surfaces/teeth (ie, total counts of combined caries scores for surfaces or teeth); measures of caries experience (ie, total counts of combined caries scores, filled and/or missing surfaces or teeth); and measures of central tendency and dispersion. The number of decayed surfaces and individual ICDAS scores were the most commonly used measures. Three studies used mean ICDAS score (ie, total ICDAS scores divided by the number of teeth), two used mean ICDAS score of carious teeth (ie, total ICDAS scores divided by the number of carious teeth) and two used the maximum ICDAS score (ie, highest ICDAS score recorded). The total ICDAS score was used only once. Many studies synthesized from the ICDAS the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth/surfaces (dmft/DMFT, dmfs/DMFS) as a measure of caries experience.

CONCLUSIONS

There are variations among studies in the utilization of the system to summarize caries. Most studies presented caries data using the categorical characteristics of the ICDAS.

摘要

目的

探讨采用国际龋病检测和评估系统（ICDAS）的研究中龋病的报告方式。

方法

对 PubMed、Ovid MEDLINE、Cochrane 图书馆和 ISI Web of Science 电子数据库进行系统的数据库检索，检索时间截至 2017 年 8 月。仅纳入使用 ICDAS 进行龋齿检查的研究。如果检查仅用于 ICDAS 的验证或校准，或者检查未用于整个牙列，则排除研究。考虑了用于报告龋齿的措施。

结果

共有 126 篇论文符合纳入标准。报告龋齿时使用了 44 种不同的综合措施。大多数研究使用多种措施的组合来报告患者的龋齿程度。这些报告措施分为四大类：个体 ICDAS 评分的数量（即每个评分的总数）；患龋表面/牙齿的数量（即联合龋评分的总计数）；龋齿经验的衡量标准（即联合龋评分、填充和/或缺失表面或牙齿的总计数）；以及集中趋势和离散度的衡量标准。患龋表面的数量和个体 ICDAS 评分是最常用的衡量标准。有 3 项研究使用平均 ICDAS 评分（即，总 ICDAS 评分除以牙齿数），2 项研究使用患龋牙的平均 ICDAS 评分（即，总 ICDAS 评分除以患龋牙数），2 项研究使用最大 ICDAS 评分（即记录的最高 ICDAS 评分）。总 ICDAS 评分仅使用过一次。许多研究从 ICDAS 中综合了龋失补牙数（dmft/DMFT、dmfs/DMFS）作为龋齿经验的衡量标准。