Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Improving dental health status indicators for evaluation

J M Lewis1

  • 1School of Dental Science, The University of Melbourne, Australia.

Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology
|February 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary

The decayed, missing, or filled teeth (DMFT) index has limitations for evaluating dental programs. Some single measures of caries experience are more valid indicators of dental health status than composite indices.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Operation for Non-union of Fracture of Tibia.

Daniel's Texas medical journal·2023
Same author

New Operation for Internal Hæmorrhoids.

Daniel's Texas medical journal·2023
Same author

Report of a Case.

The Southern medical record·2022
Same author

The Use of Vesecants in Diseases of Children.

The Southern medical record·2022
Same author

Malarial Fevers-Cause and Treatment.

The Southern medical record·2022
Same author

Electrokinetic device design and constraints for use in high conductance solutions.

Electrophoresis·2017

Area of Science:

  • Dental Public Health
  • Epidemiology
  • Health Services Research

Background:

  • Evaluating dental health programs relies on accurate population dental status indicators.
  • The widely used Decayed, Missing, or Filled Teeth (DMFT) index has limitations for program evaluation.
  • Alternative composite and single measures of caries experience exist.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the relative validity of the DMFT index, utility-weighted DMFT variations, and single caries measures.
  • To assess indices based on variance explained by antecedent/behavioral variables and longitudinal changes.

Main Methods:

  • Multiple regression analyses to determine variance explained by predictor variables for each index.
  • Longitudinal study design, re-examining the population after five years to assess index changes.
  • Comparison of composite indices (DMFT, utility-weighted DMFT) and single caries measures.

Main Results:

  • Variance explained by composite indices ranged from 29% to 46%; single measures varied from 16% to 49%.
  • Five-year percentage changes in indices ranged from 0% to 4.5%.
  • Utility-weighted indices were not consistently more sensitive than DMFT; some single measures showed greater sensitivity.

Conclusions:

  • Single measures of caries experience can provide valid information for dental program evaluation.
  • For composite indices, a full Quality-Adjusted Tooth Years (QATY) approach may offer improved validity over utility-weighted DMFT.
  • Rethinking the reliance on traditional composite indices like DMFT is necessary for robust dental health program evaluation.

Related Experiment Videos