Rozier R G
Department of Health Policy and Administration, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599.
Adv Dent Res. 1994 Jun;8(1):39-55. doi: 10.1177/08959374940080010901.
Several indices have been used to describe the clinical appearance of dental fluorosis. The purpose of this paper is to describe and compare the three principal ones in use today: those developed by Dean (1934, 1942), Thylstrup and Fejerskov (1978), and Horowitz et al. (1984). A recent index (Fluorosis Risk Index) developed by Pendrys (1990) is also included in this review. The continued use of Dean's classification system and derived index (CFI) for more than a half century is testimony to its simplicity and utility. The index has been criticized because the unit of analysis is the person, because criteria are unclear for some categories, or that they lack sensitivity, particularly for severe fluorosis, and because of the way in which data are summarized and reported. The Thylstrup and Fejerskov Index is appealing to clinicians and epidemiologists alike in that it corresponds closely to histological changes that occur in dental fluorosis and to enamel fluoride concentrations, thereby having biological validity. The TSIF described by Horowitz et al. makes a useful contribution because it provides clearer diagnostic criteria and provides for an analysis based on esthetic concerns. The Fluorosis Risk Index appears to be particularly useful for analytical epidemiologic studies, because it is designed to permit a more accurate identification of associations between age-specific exposures to fluoride and the development of dental fluorosis. All three indices in common use today provide useful indices for the study of dental fluorosis. The utility of the Fluorosis Risk Index will be determined as it receives wider use. The selection of one of these indices for use in an epidemiologic study depends in large measure on the purpose of the study. Research needs to continue on the validity of these indices, particularly for mild fluorosis, and on the public's perception of the cosmetic appearance of teeth with different severity levels of fluorosis.
有几种指数已被用于描述氟斑牙的临床表现。本文的目的是描述和比较目前使用的三种主要指数:由迪恩(1934年、1942年)、蒂尔斯楚普和费耶斯科夫(1978年)以及霍洛维茨等人(1984年)制定的指数。彭德里斯(1990年)最近制定的一项指数(氟斑牙风险指数)也包含在本综述中。迪恩分类系统及其衍生指数(CFI)持续使用了半个多世纪,这证明了其简单性和实用性。该指数受到批评的原因在于,分析单位是人,某些类别的标准不明确,或者缺乏敏感性,尤其是对重度氟斑牙而言,还在于数据汇总和报告的方式。蒂尔斯楚普和费耶斯科夫指数对临床医生和流行病学家都具有吸引力,因为它与氟斑牙中发生的组织学变化以及牙釉质氟浓度密切相关,因此具有生物学有效性。霍洛维茨等人描述的TSIF做出了有益贡献,因为它提供了更清晰的诊断标准,并基于美学考虑进行分析。氟斑牙风险指数似乎对分析性流行病学研究特别有用,因为它旨在更准确地识别特定年龄氟暴露与氟斑牙发展之间的关联。当今普遍使用的所有这三种指数都为氟斑牙研究提供了有用的指标。氟斑牙风险指数的实用性将在其得到更广泛应用时得以确定。在流行病学研究中选择这些指数之一很大程度上取决于研究目的。需要继续研究这些指数的有效性,特别是对轻度氟斑牙而言,以及公众对不同严重程度氟斑牙牙齿外观的认知。