Current Techniques for Measuring Dental Fluorosis: Issues in Data Analysis

Abstract

The currently popular scoring systems used to diagnosis fluorosis use different measurement units, evaluate variable numbers of sites per person, and involve non-comparable groupings of clinical symptoms. Although none of these factors is related to the level of fluoride exposure in the examined population, their combined effect produces fluorosis prevalence values for a population which vary considerably among and within these scoring systems. Intrinsic factors for a scoring system include the inclusion of a questionable category, the minimal level of fluorotic involvement, and the number of affected sites within a subject required for case definition. Thus, a case definition of fluorosis for each scoring system, although not mandatory, would certainly be desirable so that dental epidemiologists and clinical investigators can interpret fluorosis scores relative to risk assessment. On the other hand, ratios of fluorosis prevalence magnitudes, as evidenced by odds ratios, can be more stable between scoring systems when groups with different fluoride exposure levels are compared.

There is a strong correlation between extent and specific measures of fluorosis severity for Dean's Index (DI) and the Tooth Surface Index of Fluorosis (TSIF) scoring system, as well as within each scoring system separately. Parallel patterns in fluorosis severity were found among groups with different fluoride exposures for the DI and TSIF scoring systems. The effects of fluoride exposure on severity levels of fluorosis may be better understood by using relative measures rather than by using differences in severity levels.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dean HT ( 1934). Classification of mottled enamel diagnosis. J Am Dent Assoc 21:1421-1426.

Heeren T. , D'Agostino RB (1987). Robustness of the two independent samples t-test when applied to ordinal scaled data. Stat in Med 44:23-27.

Driscoll WS , Horowitz HS , Meyers RJ , Heifetz SB , Kingman A. , Zimmerman ER (1983). Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with optimal and above-optimal water fluoride concentrations. J Am Dent Assoc 107:42-47.

Fleiss JL (1986). The design and analysis of clinical experiments . New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Horowitz HS , Driscoll WS , Meyers RJ , Heifetz SB , Kingman A. (1984). A new method for assessing the prevalence of dental fluorosis: the Tooth Surface Index of Fluorosis. J Am Dent Assoc 109:37-41.

Kingman A. (1992). Specific statistical considerations relevant to the design and analysis of gingivitis trials demonstrating product superiority or equivalence. J Periodont Res 27:378-389.

Liang KY , Zeger SL (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 73:13-22.

Manji F. , Baelum V. , Fejerskov O. (1986). Fluoride, altitude and dental fluorosis. Caries Res 20:473-480.

Mantel N. , Haenszel W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22:719-748.

10.

Pendrys D. (1990). The fluorosis risk index: a method for investigating risk factors. J Publ Hlth Dent 50:291-298.

11.

Rozier RG (1994). Epidemiologic indices for measuring the clinical manifestations of dental fluorosis: overview and critique. Adv Dent Res 8:000-000.

12.

Thylstrup A. , Fejerskov O. (1978). Clinical appearance of dental fluorosis in permanent teeth in relation to histological changes. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 6:315-328.