Awareness Among Dental Practitioners in India Regarding the Caries Assessment Tools Used in Epidemiological Survey: A Cross-Sectional Study

TL;DR

This study explores how well Indian dental professionals understand caries assessment tools used in health surveys.

Contribution

The study provides insights into the awareness and training needs of dental practitioners regarding caries assessment tools in India.

Findings

Most dentists believed caries assessment tools should track all stages of dental caries.

DMFT was perceived as the most commonly used and simplest index.

Only a small percentage of dentists were familiar with newer tools like ICDAS II, PUFA, and CAST.

Abstract

Introduction

Dental caries is one of the major health problems that researchers and clinicians are trying to tackle at a global level. To halt the progression of disease, it is important to assess dental caries prevalence at both the individual and community levels. Therefore, we have conducted this study to gather information regarding the caries assessment tools, Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) index, International Caries Detection and Assessment System (IDCAS II) index, Pulpal Involvement, Ulceration, Fistula, and Abscess (PUFA) index, Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST) index, which are used in epidemiological surveys by dental practitioners. Diagnosis right at the inception of any disease is a first step toward its prevention.

Methodology

This was a questionnaire-based descriptive cross-sectional study. It was carried out in an online mode by circulating a Google Form (Google, Inc., Mountain View, CA) among 244 dentists through various forms of social media availability. Data confidentiality was maintained by the investigators of the study. Data obtained from the study were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Version 21, Armonk, NY). The chi-square test of proportion was used for inferential statistics.

Results

One hundred fifty-five (63.5%) respondents believed that a caries assessment tool used in epidemiological surveys should record all the stages of dental carious lesions, right from incipient caries up to the stage of pulpal involvement due to caries. Two hundred seventeen (88.9%) participants believed that DMFT is the most commonly used and the oldest index due to its simplicity and ease of application. Assessing the knowledge regarding the ICDAS II tool, 63 (25.8%) of respondents did not know the carious lesion parameters that could be measured using this index. Only a handful of respondents (40 (16.4%)) were fully aware of the objective of the PUFA index to track the progression of untreated carious lesions. Familiarity with the CAST index was extremely low, as barely 87 (35.7%) participants suggested that it could record the full spectrum of dental illness, and 122 (50%) had no knowledge pertaining to the index. Ninety-one (37.3%) and 84 (34.4%) participants were of the opinion that DMFT and ICDAS II, respectively, were the most suitable tools to record dental caries prevalence in epidemiological surveys. Two hundred twenty-one (90.6%) participants advocated the need for conducting regular training programs to apprise dental practitioners in reference to the caries assessment tools used in epidemiological surveys.

Conclusion

This study enlightened us about the extent of knowledge among dental practitioners toward the different caries assessment tools used in epidemiological surveys. Therefore, this information will act as a starting point for planning seminars and workshops to educate dentists about caries assessment tools at an expansive level. It will also take a further step toward caries prevention by enabling the health policymakers to plan appropriate preventive and curative measures applicable globally.