首页> 外文期刊>Community dentistry and oral epidemiology >Assessment of different methods for diagnosing dental caries in epidemiological surveys.
【24h】

Assessment of different methods for diagnosing dental caries in epidemiological surveys.

机译:在流行病学调查中评估不同的龋齿诊断方法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Assaf AV, Meneghim MC, Zanin L, Mialhe FL, Pereira AC, Ambrosano GMB. Assessment of different methods for diagnosing dental caries in epidemiological surveys. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004; 32: 418-25. (c) Blackwell Munksgaard, 2004Abstract -Aims: The aims of the study were: (i) to assess different clinical diagnostic methods of dental caries during epidemiological surveys; (ii) to determine which combinations of methods and diagnostic adjuncts show the best performances in epidemiological surveys when compared with examinations performed in a traditional dental setting (standard); (iii) to evaluate the influence of including noncavitated (NC) lesions in dental caries estimation. Methods: Forty 12-year-old children were divided into low and moderate caries prevalence groups. The individuals were submitted to 12 epidemiological examinations (in an outdoor setting), which combined three methods (blade, mirror and mirror + CPI (Community Periodontal Index) dental probe) with or without diagnostic adjuncts (previous dental brushing and dental drying). The last examination was performed in a traditional dental setting (standard examination). The unit of measure was the DMFS (decayed, missing and filled surfaces) index according to WHO criteria. The variance analysis, Dunnet's and Tukey's tests were applied. Results: For the DMFS analysis, the visual/tactile method, with or without diagnostic adjuncts, was the best method for both groups, presenting a performance higher than 90% when compared with the standard examination, except for the examinations without previous dental brushing for the low caries prevalence group. Previous dental brushing was more relevant than dental drying (P = 0.0054). All of the epidemiological examinations underestimated the NC diagnosis even with the association of diagnostic adjuncts when compared with the standard examination. Conclusion: The visual-tactile (for both groups) and the visual (mirror) methods plus dental brushing (for the moderate group) are appropriate for diagnosing cavitated lesions, but not NC lesions.
机译:Assaf AV,Meneghim MC,Zanin L,Mialhe FL,Pereira AC,Ambrosano GMB。在流行病学调查中评估不同的龋齿诊断方法。社区口腔口腔流行病2004; 32:418-25。 (c)Blackwell Munksgaard,2004年摘要-目的:该研究的目的是:(i)在流行病学调查中评估龋齿的不同临床诊断方法; (ii)确定与传统牙科环境(标准)中进行的检查相比,哪种方法和诊断辅助手段在流行病学调查中显示出最佳的表现; (iii)评估在龋齿评估中包括非空洞(NC)病变的影响。方法:将40名12岁儿童分为低度和中度龋齿患病率组。对该人进行了12次流行病学检查(在室外环境中),该检查结合了三种方法(刀片,镜子和镜子+ CPI(社区牙周指数)牙齿探针),并带有或不带有诊断辅助(以前的刷牙和牙齿干燥)。最后一次检查是在传统的牙科环境中进行的(标准检查)。度量单位是根据WHO标准的DMFS(衰退,缺失和填充表面)指数。应用了方差分析,Dunnet和Tukey检验。结果:对于DMFS分析,视觉/触觉方法(带有或不带有诊断辅助)是两组的最佳方法,与标准检查相比,其性能高于90%,除了以前没有刷牙的检查外低龋患病率组。先前的牙齿刷牙比牙齿干燥更为重要(P = 0.0054)。与标准检查相比,所有流行病学检查都低估了NC诊断,即使诊断辅助的关联也是如此。结论:视觉触觉(两组)和视觉(镜)方法加刷牙(中度组)均适用于诊断空洞性病变,但不适用于NC病变。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号