Darya Dabiri1, George J Eckert2, Yihong Li3, Kim Seow4, Robert J Schroth5, John Warren6, J Timothy Wright7, Shi Zhao8, Margherita Fontana9. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan School of Medicine, in Ann Arbor, Mich., USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Ind., USA. 3. Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, N.Y., USA. 4. Centre for Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 5. Department of Preventive Dental Science, College of Dentistry and the Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 6. Department of Preventive and Community Dentistry, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 7. Pediatric Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry, Chapel Hill, N.C., USA. 8. Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Heath, Indianapolis, Ind., USA. 9. Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics University of Michigan School of Dentistry, in Ann Arbor, Mich., USA. mfontan@umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess dentists' ability to correctly identify and classify development defects of enamel (DDE). METHODS: The modified DDE (MDDE) index was used to classify enamel defects into two types: (1) enamel hypoplasia-pitted, grooved, or missing enamel; or (2) enamel opacity-translucency of enamel not caused by dental caries or fluorosis (can be either demarcated or diffuse). A panel of six experts selected and scored 36 images using the MDDE, and the consensus score was used as the gold standard score in the evaluation of survey respondents. A short training table was developed to match training images to descriptors for the MDDE. A survey, including the training table, was then distributed electronically to 2,036 U.S. dentists and expanded function dental assistants from the Indian Health Service and 6,174 members of American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. The percent of correct responses was evaluated for each image. RESULTS: Survey respondents (348 total) showed great variability in correct responses for each image, ranging from 41 to 97 percent, for each category of the MDDE. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced training and calibration on the ability of dental providers is needed to identify the different types of development defects of enamel.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess dentists' ability to correctly identify and classify development defects of enamel (DDE). METHODS: The modified DDE (MDDE) index was used to classify enamel defects into two types: (1) enamel hypoplasia-pitted, grooved, or missing enamel; or (2) enamel opacity-translucency of enamel not caused by dental caries or fluorosis (can be either demarcated or diffuse). A panel of six experts selected and scored 36 images using the MDDE, and the consensus score was used as the gold standard score in the evaluation of survey respondents. A short training table was developed to match training images to descriptors for the MDDE. A survey, including the training table, was then distributed electronically to 2,036 U.S. dentists and expanded function dental assistants from the Indian Health Service and 6,174 members of American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. The percent of correct responses was evaluated for each image. RESULTS: Survey respondents (348 total) showed great variability in correct responses for each image, ranging from 41 to 97 percent, for each category of the MDDE. CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced training and calibration on the ability of dental providers is needed to identify the different types of development defects of enamel.
Authors: Moritz Blanck-Lubarsch; Dieter Dirksen; Reinhold Feldmann; Cristina Sauerland; Ariane Hohoff Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anna Durbin; Bennett T Amaechi; Stephen Abrams; Andreas Mandelis; Sara Werb; Benjamin Roebuck; Janet Durbin; Ri Wang; Maryam Daneshvarfard; Konesh Sivagurunathan; Laurent Bozec Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-14 Impact factor: 3.390