COMPARISON OF RESULTS USING ICDAS AND DMFS IN MOSCOW ADULTS

Abstract

During the 3rd National Oral Health Survey in Russia, questions have been raised whether a more advanced method of caries detection (used in conjunction with the standard method) is more suitable and realistic in domestic conditions. The aim of this study was to compare differences in caries diagnosis results and measurement duration between DMFS and ICDAS.

Methods: Fifty volunteers aged 35-44 years old comprised a convenience sample in a pilot study and were examined by one dentist in Moscow. Evaluation of dental caries was performed using DMFS. Additionally, the mean number of non-cavitated caries lesions (codes 1-2) and cavitated (codes 3-6) were evaluated by ICDAS criteria. The mean scores of DMFS and ICDAS were compared using T-test. Measurement duration of both ICDAS and DMFS was recorded. Intra- examiner reliability was measured by Kappa. The study was approved by Ethical Committee of Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry.

Results: The mean number of decayed tooth surfaces (D-component of DMFS) was 3.35±0.71: occlusal surfaces– 1.96±0.52; smooth surfaces – 0.28±0.11; approximal surfaces – 1.11±0.27. During examination using ICDAS criteria, the mean number of carious tooth surfaces was 10.88±1.07, of which 6.88±0.77 (63.2%) were non-cavitated. Specifically, 2.60±0.34 non-cavitated lesions were detected on occlusal surfaces, 3.40±0.42 on smooth surfaces, and 0.88±0.18 on approximal surfaces. The mean number of cavitated lesions was 4.00±0.52 (yielding a non- significant difference of 16.3% compared with DMFS D-component 3.35±0.71, p>0.05). The number of decayed occlusal surfaces was 2.05±0.41, smooth surfaces – 0.36±0.13, and approximal surfaces – 1.59±0.42, showing a difference of 4.4% (1.96±0.52), 22.2% (0.28±0.11), and 30.2% (1.11±0.27), respectively, compared with the DMFS D-component, which was not significant (p>0.05). However, the difference between mean scores of DMFS and ICDAS was significant (3.35±0.71 versus 10.88±1.07, p<0.01); the same tendency was observed on occlusal, smooth and proximal surfaces (1.96±0.52 and 4.65±0.84, p<0.01; 0.28±0.11 and 3.76±0.72, p<0.001; 1.11±0.27 and 2.47±0.65, p<0.05). Intra-examiner reliability for caries diagnosis by ICDAS was good (Kappa=0.76). Measurement duration for DMFS and ICDAS was 4.5±0.7 and 12.3±3.4 minutes, correspondingly, but did not include time duration required for professional teeth cleaning before ICDAS diagnosis.

Conclusions: Evaluation of dental caries in adults is improved using ICDAS, compared to assessment by DMFS; however, a longer time commitment should be taken into consideration by researchers while planning objectives of epidemiological studies using ICDAS. Additionally, ICDAS is a suitable and realistic (additional) tool for dental research in Russia.