Jolanta Aleksejuniene1, Vilma Brukiene. 1. Department of Oral Health Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of British Columbia. jolantaa@interchange.ubc.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims were to give an overview and consider advantages and disadvantages of different approaches used to evaluate dental treatment need and to suggest an alternate Quantitative Summative Dental Treatment Need Index. METHODS: The Medline Ovid database was searched for relevant articles published during the last three decades combining the terms "needs assessment," "dental care," "health services needs and demand." RESULTS: There were substantial differences in methods used. Different modifications of the Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth/Surfaces indices, complex quantitative summative indices, or simplified approaches were used to assess dental treatment need. Differing advantages and disadvantages of these methods can be identified. Previously used approaches have a common limitation for use in oral epidemiology. CONCLUSIONS: The suggested alternate Quantitative Summative Dental Treatment Needs Index focuses on an ability to compare both the total burden of treatment need as well as to make a distinction among specific treatment needs across populations. This new approach is an attempt to develop a comprehensive index for use in oral epidemiology with further revisions anticipated.
OBJECTIVE: The aims were to give an overview and consider advantages and disadvantages of different approaches used to evaluate dental treatment need and to suggest an alternate Quantitative Summative Dental Treatment Need Index. METHODS: The Medline Ovid database was searched for relevant articles published during the last three decades combining the terms "needs assessment," "dental care," "health services needs and demand." RESULTS: There were substantial differences in methods used. Different modifications of the Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth/Surfaces indices, complex quantitative summative indices, or simplified approaches were used to assess dental treatment need. Differing advantages and disadvantages of these methods can be identified. Previously used approaches have a common limitation for use in oral epidemiology. CONCLUSIONS: The suggested alternate Quantitative Summative Dental Treatment Needs Index focuses on an ability to compare both the total burden of treatment need as well as to make a distinction among specific treatment needs across populations. This new approach is an attempt to develop a comprehensive index for use in oral epidemiology with further revisions anticipated.