LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2016 | Volume
: 14 | Issue : 3 | Page : 348-
Risk factors for predicting early childhood caries in Anganwadi children in Bengaluru city: A cross-sectional study
Mahmood Dhahir Al-Mendalawi
Department of Paediatrics, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, Baghdad University, Baghdad, Iraq
Mahmood Dhahir Al-Mendalawi
Department of Paediatrics, Al-Kindy College of Medicine, Baghdad University, Baghdad
|How to cite this article:|
Al-Mendalawi MD. Risk factors for predicting early childhood caries in Anganwadi children in Bengaluru city: A cross-sectional study.J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent 2016;14:348-348
|How to cite this URL:|
Al-Mendalawi MD. Risk factors for predicting early childhood caries in Anganwadi children in Bengaluru city: A cross-sectional study. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Dec 6 ];14:348-348
Available from: http://www.jiaphd.org/text.asp?2016/14/3/348/189841
I have two comments on the interesting study by Shilpashree et al. on the risk factors for predicting early childhood caries (ECC) in Anganwadi children in Bengaluru city.
First, the authors addressed that the prevalence of ECC in the study population was 31.4%, and the mean decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT) was 1.15 ± 2.28. The mean DMFT among males and females was 1.31 ± 2.48 and 1.01 ± 2.07, respectively. I presume that the reported ECC prevalence and the mean DMFT might not be actual in the clinical field. This is based on the presence of an important methodological limitation. The authors employed the World Health Organization (WHO) caries diagnosis criteria in the calculation of DMFT index. It is worthy to mention that there are two methods to classify caries for comparison in epidemiological studies, namely, the WHO caries diagnosis criteria and the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) II caries criteria. Evaluation of these two methods revealed substantial differences. On one hand, a review of literature showed that there was a disagreement of the ICDAS II codes to be used for the DMF calculation; and when there was a need to compare DMF values between studies, the diagnosis threshold should be verified to be the same. On the other hand, two intraoral examinations, one using the ICDAS II caries codes and the other the WHO caries assessment method revealed that the least differences between the WHO and ICDAS 11 criteria were found at cutoff point 3 (ICDAS 11 codes 3–6) while the greatest agreement was found at the same cutoff point. I presume that employing ICDAS II caries criteria by the authors might yield altered results.
Second, regardless of the aforementioned limitation, the increasingly reported ECC prevalence in Bengaluru city from 27.5% to 31.3% necessitates strict actions to prevent further rise of ECC prevalence. Apart from increasing awareness of public by various means on that issue, pediatric primary health care providers could play a fundamental role through providing oral health promotion and disease prevention activities as well as dental screening and early referral to dentists. Moreover, promotion of oral health programs through school curricula is tentative.
|1||Shilpashree KB, Manjunath C, Ramakrishna T. Risk factors for predicting early childhood caries in Anganwadi children in Bangalore city: A cross-sectional study. J Indian Assoc Public Health Dent 2016;14:160-3.|
|2||Clara J, Bourgeois D, Muller-Bolla M. DMF from WHO basic methods to ICDAS II advanced methods: A systematic review of literature. Odontostomatol Trop 2012;35:5-11.|
|3||Iranzo-Cortés JE, Montiel-Company JM, Almerich-Silla JM. Caries diagnosis: Agreement between WHO and ICDAS II criteria in epidemiological surveys. Community Dent Health 2013;30:108-11.|
|4||Prakash P, Subramaniam P, Durgesh BH, Konde S. Prevalence of early childhood caries and associated risk factors in preschool children of urban Bangalore, India: A cross-sectional study. Eur J Dent 2012;6:141-52.|
|5||dela Cruz GG, Rozier RG, Slade G. Dental screening and referral of young children by pediatric primary care providers. Pediatrics 2004;114:e642-52.|