Advances in Dental Research, Vol 8, 39-55, Copyright © 1994 by International & American Associations for Dental Research

ARTICLES

Epidemiologic indices for measuring the clinical manifestations of dental fluorosis: overview and critique

R. G. Rozier
Department of Health Policy and Administration, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599.

Several indices have been used to describe the clinical appearance of dental fluorosis. The purpose of this paper is to describe and compare the three principal ones in use today: those developed by Dean (1934, 1942), Thylstrup and Fejerskov (1978), and Horowitz et al. (1984). A recent index (Fluorosis Risk Index) developed by Pendrys (1990) is also included in this review. The continued use of Dean's classification system and derived index (CFI) for more than a half century is testimony to its simplicity and utility. The index has been criticized because the unit of analysis is the person, because criteria are unclear for some categories, or that they lack sensitivity, particularly for severe fluorosis, and because of the way in which data are summarized and reported. The Thylstrup and Fejerskov Index is appealing to clinicians and epidemiologists alike in that it corresponds closely to histological changes that occur in dental fluorosis and to enamel fluoride concentrations, thereby having biological validity. The TSIF described by Horowitz et al. makes a useful contribution because it provides clearer diagnostic criteria and provides for an analysis based on esthetic concerns. The Fluorosis Risk Index appears to be particularly useful for analytical epidemiologic studies, because it is designed to permit a more accurate identification of associations between age-specific exposures to fluoride and the development of dental fluorosis. All three indices in common use today provide useful indices for the study of dental fluorosis. The utility of the Fluorosis Risk Index will be determined as it receives wider use. The selection of one of these indices for use in an epidemiologic study depends in large measure on the purpose of the study. Research needs to continue on the validity of these indices, particularly for mild fluorosis, and on the public's perception of the cosmetic appearance of teeth with different severity levels of fluorosis.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. P.G.F. VIEIRA, H. P. LAWRENCE, H. LIMEBACK, F. C. SAMPAIO, and M. GRYNPAS A visual analog scale for measuring dental fluorosis severity J Am Dent Assoc, July 1, 2005; 136(7): 895 - 901. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. H. BOWEN Fluorosis: Is it really a problem? J Am Dent Assoc, October 1, 2002; 133(10): 1405 - 1407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. D. BELTRAN-AGUILAR, S. O. GRIFFIN, and S. A. LOCKWOOD Prevalence and trends in enamel fluorosis in the United States from the 1930s to the 1980s J Am Dent Assoc, February 1, 2002; 133(2): 157 - 165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. G. PENDRYS RISK OF ENAMEL FLUOROSIS IN NONFLUORIDATED AND OPTIMALLY FLUORIDATED POPULATIONS: CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DENTAL PROFESSIONAL J Am Dent Assoc, June 1, 2000; 131(6): 746 - 755. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]