PREV PREVIOUS RECIPE NEXT NEXT RECIPE

Index Of Teeth 2007 !link! -

Unlocking the Archives: A Comprehensive Guide to the "Index of Teeth 2007"

By: Dental Historians & Archival Research Team

In the digital age, few search queries feel as cryptic and yet as precise as "index of teeth 2007." For the casual internet user, this phrase might seem like a typo. However, for dental professionals, forensic odontologists, medical coders, and dental students, the "Index of Teeth 2007" represents a specific temporal snapshot of dental classification systems. It refers to the standardized nomenclature, numbering systems, and database indexing protocols for human dentition as recognized or updated in the year 2007.

Why does 2007 matter? Because the mid-2000s marked a transition from purely paper-based charting to the first wave of universal digital dental records (EHRs). This article provides a deep dive into what the "Index of Teeth 2007" entails, including the Universal Numbering System, the FDI World Dental Federation notation, and the Palmer Notation, as they were documented and archived in that pivotal year.

7. Limitations

  • Learning curve for clinicians accustomed to FDI or Universal.
  • Not universally adopted in all countries (e.g., Japan still prefers FDI; USA leans toward Universal).
  • No inherent laterality indicator beyond the quadrant letter (but this is by design).

Index of Teeth (2007) — Monograph

Overview

  • The "index of teeth" denotes quantitative measures used to summarize dental status in populations or individuals; in a 2007 context this mostly refers to commonly used epidemiological indices and classification systems current at that time (and widely in use thereafter).
  • Purpose: enable comparison across studies/populations, track disease burden (caries, periodontal disease, tooth loss), inform public health planning, and measure treatment needs.

Major indices and measures (2007-era)

  1. DMFT / dmft (Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth)
  • Definition: Sum of decayed (D/d), missing (M/m) due to caries, and filled (F/f) permanent (uppercase) or primary (lowercase) teeth.
  • Range: 0 to number of teeth (permanent usually 28 or 32 depending on third molars inclusion).
  • Use: standard global measure of dental caries prevalence and severity.
  • Example (adult with 2 decayed, 1 tooth missing from caries, 3 restorations): DMFT = 2 + 1 + 3 = 6.
  1. DMFS / dmfs (Decayed, Missing, Filled Surfaces)
  • Definition: Same components as DMFT but counted by tooth surfaces (more sensitive).
  • Use: finer-grained caries measurement in epidemiology and trials.
  • Example: A molar with two restored surfaces contributes 2 to DMFS.
  1. Significant Caries Index (SiC)
  • Definition: Mean DMFT of the one-third of the population with the highest DMFT.
  • Purpose: highlight high-risk subgroup within population averages.
  • Use: policy focus for targeted interventions.
  1. Care Index / Restorative Index
  • Care Index = (Filled teeth / DMFT) × 100%
  • Restorative Index often defined similarly or as (Filled / (Filled + Decayed)) ×100.
  • Purpose: indicate treatment provision relative to disease burden.
  • Example: DMFT = 8, Filled = 2 → Care Index = (2/8)*100 = 25%.
  1. PUFA / pufa (Pulpal involvement, Ulceration, Fistula, Abscess)
  • Definition: Clinical consequences of untreated caries recorded per tooth.
  • Use: highlight severe untreated decay often omitted from DMFT.
  • Example: tooth with pulpal exposure and fistula contributes counts to P and F.
  1. CPI / CPITN (Community Periodontal Index / Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs) — WHO probe-based
  • Definition: Gingival bleeding, calculus, shallow/deep pockets scored per sextant using a special probe; commonly used cutoff codes 0–4.
  • Use: population periodontal screening and treatment need estimation.
  • Limitations (circa 2007): partial-mouth recording and sextant approach can underestimate disease.
  1. Periodontal Attachment Loss (CAL) indices
  • Definition: Clinical attachment level measurements at multiple sites per tooth to quantify cumulative periodontal destruction.
  • Use: gold-standard for epidemiologic severity; often reported as mean CAL or proportion exceeding thresholds (e.g., ≥3 mm, ≥5 mm).
  • Example: reporting percent of population with ≥1 site CAL ≥5 mm.
  1. Gingival Index (GI), Plaque Index (PI), Silness-Löe, Turesky Modified Quigley Hein
  • Definition: Ordinal indices for gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation assessed at tooth surfaces.
  • Use: clinical trials, short-term studies, hygiene intervention assessment.
  1. Tooth Loss Measures
  • Edentulism prevalence (complete), mean number of missing teeth per person, functional dentition indicators (e.g., having ≥20 natural teeth).
  • Use: measure of cumulative lifetime oral disease and access to care.
  1. Prosthetic Indices
  • Need for prosthetic replacement classified by tooth/arch; indexes classifying prosthetic status and unmet prosthetic need.
  1. Caries Risk/Activity Indices (clinical)
  • Examples: Cariogram (probabilistic risk profile), Salivary tests, bacterial counts (mutans streptococci, lactobacilli) used adjunctively in 2007 for individual risk assessment.
  1. Aesthetic / Occlusal Indices
  • Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need (IOTN), Dental Aesthetic Index (DAI) — measure malocclusion severity and priority for orthodontic care.

Methodological considerations (2007)

  • Full-mouth vs partial-mouth recording: Partial-mouth (e.g., index teeth) reduces examination time but risks under- or over-estimation; full-mouth recommended where feasible.
  • Examiner calibration and inter-/intra-examiner reliability essential for valid comparisons.
  • Case definitions: caries thresholds (visual, cavitated lesions only vs non-cavitated inclusion) affect DMFT comparability. In 2007, many surveys still used cavitated-lesion-based DMFT; newer epidemiology was moving toward ICDAS system for more sensitive detection.
  • Age-standardization: commonly report indices by age groups (e.g., 5, 12, 15, 35–44, 65–74 years) for comparability with WHO targets.
  • Socioeconomic and behavioral covariates: indices commonly stratified by SES, access to fluoridated water, oral hygiene, and diet.

Evolution and alternatives around 2007

  • ICDAS (International Caries Detection and Assessment System) gaining traction for caries staging beyond DMFT, enabling detection of non-cavitated lesions; promotes surface-level codes 0–6.
  • Move toward combining clinical indices with patient-centered outcomes (oral-health-related quality of life) and functional measures.
  • Increased use of SiC to address skewed caries distributions.

Worked examples

  • National survey snapshot (hypothetical, adult 35–44 years, n=1000): index of teeth 2007

    • Mean DMFT = 12.3; Decayed mean = 1.2; Missing mean = 7.5; Filled mean = 3.6. Care Index = (3.6/12.3)*100 = 29.3%. Edentulism prevalence = 2.1%. Proportion with at least one site CAL ≥5 mm = 18%.

  • Clinical trial outcome (6-month fluoride varnish trial in children):

    • Baseline mean dmfs = 8.0; 6-month mean dmfs (treatment) = 6.5; (control) = 7.9. Report both change scores and percent reduction in active lesions; complement with PUFA counts for severe outcomes.

Recommendations for reporting (best practice circa 2007)

  • Specify case definitions (what counts as decay, cavitation thresholds).
  • Use full-mouth recording when possible; if partial, state index teeth and justify.
  • Report DMFT and DMFS when feasible, plus SiC for skewed distributions.
  • Include PUFA to capture severe untreated disease.
  • Report periodontal outcomes with clear thresholds (e.g., percent with CAL ≥3 mm) and specify probe and measurement sites.
  • Include examiner calibration statistics (kappa or intra-class correlation).
  • Stratify by standard age groups and key sociodemographic variables.
  • Where possible, supplement indices with patient-centered outcomes (OHIP or other OHRQoL measures).

Limitations of indices (concise)

  • DMFT/dmft undercount early non-cavitated lesions and disease activity.
  • CPI/CPITN may under- or overestimate population periodontal needs due to partial recording and sextant rules.
  • Indices are descriptive; do not capture cause, rate of progression, or treatment appropriateness.
  • Cross-study comparisons require harmonized methods.

Concluding notes

  • In 2007 the DMFT family remained the dominant dental “index of teeth” for caries epidemiology, supplemented increasingly by ICDAS for more sensitive caries detection and PUFA for severe consequences; periodontal assessment relied on CPI and site-specific CAL reporting.
  • Good practice emphasizes transparent methods, examiner calibration, and combining indices to reflect both disease burden and treatment needs.

If you want, I can:

  • produce a one-page printable summary table comparing the indices, or
  • convert the recommendations into a checklist for designing a 2007-style dental survey. Which would you like?

Part 6: A Complete Reference Table: "Index of Teeth 2007" (Universal & FDI)

Below is the definitive index for a permanent adult dentition as recognized in 2007. If you have found a spreadsheet labeled "index of teeth 2007," it should match this matrix.

| Anatomical Name | Universal # | FDI Code (2-Digit) | Quadrant (2007) | | :--- | :---: | :---: | :--- | | Upper Right 3rd Molar (Wisdom) | #1 | 18 | Upper Right | | Upper Right 2nd Molar | #2 | 17 | Upper Right | | Upper Right 1st Molar | #3 | 16 | Upper Right | | Upper Right 2nd Premolar | #4 | 15 | Upper Right | | Upper Right 1st Premolar | #5 | 14 | Upper Right | | Upper Right Canine (Eye tooth) | #6 | 13 | Upper Right | | Upper Right Lateral Incisor | #7 | 12 | Upper Right | | Upper Right Central Incisor | #8 | 11 | Upper Right | | Upper Left Central Incisor | #9 | 21 | Upper Left | | Upper Left Lateral Incisor | #10 | 22 | Upper Left | | Upper Left Canine | #11 | 23 | Upper Left | | Upper Left 1st Premolar | #12 | 24 | Upper Left | | Upper Left 2nd Premolar | #13 | 25 | Upper Left | | Upper Left 1st Molar | #14 | 26 | Upper Left | | Upper Left 2nd Molar | #15 | 27 | Upper Left | | Upper Left 3rd Molar | #16 | 28 | Upper Left | | Lower Left 3rd Molar | #17 | 38 | Lower Left | | Lower Left 2nd Molar | #18 | 37 | Lower Left | | Lower Left 1st Molar | #19 | 36 | Lower Left | | Lower Left 2nd Premolar | #20 | 35 | Lower Left | | Lower Left 1st Premolar | #21 | 34 | Lower Left | | Lower Left Canine | #22 | 33 | Lower Left | | Lower Left Lateral Incisor | #23 | 32 | Lower Left | | Lower Left Central Incisor | #24 | 31 | Lower Left | | Lower Right Central Incisor | #25 | 41 | Lower Right | | Lower Right Lateral Incisor | #26 | 42 | Lower Right | | Lower Right Canine | #27 | 43 | Lower Right | | Lower Right 1st Premolar | #28 | 44 | Lower Right | | Lower Right 2nd Premolar | #29 | 45 | Lower Right | | Lower Right 1st Molar | #30 | 46 | Lower Right | | Lower Right 2nd Molar | #31 | 47 | Lower Right | | Lower Right 3rd Molar | #32 | 48 | Lower Right |

Academic Databases

  • PubMed Central – Search for "dental index 2007" plus "FDI tooth notation".
  • Google Scholar – Filter by date: 2007.
  • WorldCat – Look for physical CD-ROMs published in 2007 with "dental charting" or "tooth atlas" in the title.

Find More Recipes