Collecting data for dental caries studies is costly. In countries where uniform patient records are available for virtually the whole population, it is tempting to use them as a data source. Our aim was to compare data collected from patient records to those obtained by trained examiners. In 1992 and 1995, dentists who were specially trained and calibrated examined random samples of 12– and 15–year–olds living in two towns in Finland. The dental record of each child was obtained from public dental clinics, the dental status was entered into a computer file, and the DMFS value was calculated. Data were available for 824 children. In the two data sets, 1.3% of the tooth surfaces were recorded differently (DMF vs. sound) with the related ĸ value being 0.70. In two thirds of the discrepancies, the reason was that a filling was marked in only one of them, which confirms the known difficulty in discerning a white filling. For 48% of the subjects, the DMFS values calculated from the two sets of data were equal. The difference was 1 and 2 surfaces for 28 and 11%, respectively. Public health dentists had almost equally often registered more and less DMF surfaces compared to trained examiners. The results suggest that data collected from public health records are not decisively inferior to those obtained from examinations by trained examiners. In large enough settings, data obtained from patient records could possibly be used as a replacement for separate surveys.

Keywords:
Dental caries, examination, Public health records, Trained (calibrated) examiners
This content is only available via PDF.
2001
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.