Dental notation

Abstract: BACKGROUND Tooth designation systems are routinely used in dental practice, for identification of teeth, recording dental data and communication among dental professionals. There are various dental notations systems for the primary and permanent dentition. The most popular are the Zsigmondy-Palmer system, the Universal Numbering System, and the FDI system. Others includes the Victor Haderup system, the Woelfel system, and the MICAP system. The majority of dental notations are focused on permanent teeth and are modified for primary teeth, even though the latter erupt before the permanent dentition. CONCLUSION Advantages and disadvantages of notations for primary dentition are discussed and compared to a new alphanumeric system for primary teeth which is considered simple and convenient.

Abstract: Aim To identify the types of dental notation systems used in dental hospitals, and their perceived advantages and disadvantages. In addition, to record the dental notation used in patient referral letters.Method A self-completed questionnaire survey asking about the use of dental notation systems was distributed to 16 dental hospitals in the UK and Ireland in the summer of 2016. In addition, dentist referrals to the Restorative Dentistry department of the University Dental Hospital of Manchester were sequentially assessed for the dental notation used.Results Twelve hospitals replied. In order of frequency, the notation systems in use were the Alphanumeric, the Palmer, and the Federation Dentaire Internationale system. No hospital used the Universal system. Perceived advantages and disadvantages of each of the different systems were volunteered. One hundred and twenty-four referral letters were assessed and 100 were identified where dental notation was used. The majority used Alphanumeric notation.Conclusion A variety of dental notation systems remain in use in dental hospitals. The move to electronic recording and communication of information regarding teeth is encouraging the use of the Alphanumeric system. General dental practitioners are predominantly using the Alphanumeric system as their notation of choice in referral letters to the Restorative Dentistry department in Manchester.

Abstract: ooth numbering system serves as a means for identification, recording and management of dental patients.1 It specifically identifies the teeth by numbers or alphabets which are used for charting and communiqué purposes.2 Incisors, canine, premolars and molars are the dental expressions used worldwide for all human teeth.3 Miscommunication during referral cases among the dentist in specifying the tooth can cause serious misinterpretation.4 To avoid these mishaps it is necessary for the dentist to use tooth numbering system that allows accurate teeth identification.5 Most commonly opted tooth numbering systems are, Universal numbering system, Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI) and Palmer notation, which are frequently used by the dental surgeons while the dental hygienists can freely select any system for detection and conveying of dental details to others.6 FDI is a two-digit numbering tool which is widely employed in various regions.7,8,9 In this system, among the two digits the first number represents the quadrant (1-4) starting from upper right, upper left, lower left, and lower right and the second number represents the tooth (1-8).7 The Universal Numbering System for permanent dentition 1. Lecturer, Department of Oral Biology, Bahria University Medical and Dental College. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Biology, Bahria University Medical and Dental College. 3. Assistant Professor, Dental Materials, Jinnah Sindh Medical University. 4. MDS Resident, Division of Prosthodontics, Dow University Health Sciences. 5. Researcher & Consultant Statistician, Department of Bahria University College of Physical Therapy (BUCPT). 6. BDS student, Department of Oral Biology, Bahria University Medical and Dental College. Corresponding author: “Dr. Beenish Fatima Alam” < nish_alam@yahoo.com >

Abstract: Sir, I refer to the article Dentists urged to see preschool children (BDJ 2017; 223: 389). The article discusses the new BSPD ‘Dental Check by One (DCby1)’ campaign designed to get children seeing a dentist before their first birthday. Recently the media has highlighted the issue ‘that 80% of children aged between one and two did not visit an NHS dentist in 2016–17’.1 The Faculty of Dental Surgery feels that there is a ‘widespread misunderstanding among parents, and even health professionals’2 as to when to first bring a child for a dental appointment and advise that children should be seen as soon as their first tooth appears, at roughly six months of age. The new DCby1 campaign encourages the attendance of children under 12 months which will allow dental professionals to build positive experiences of dentistry, as well as deliver early detection and treatment of oral disease. However, with only ‘51.5% of the adult population’3 and ‘58.2% of the child population’3 seeing an NHS dentist from March 2016 – March 2017, I believe that to improve the uptake of DCby1 we must use a multidisciplinary approach. The BSPD has provided a logo for practices to display to indicate their participation in the scheme, but if the parents of the child are not regular attendees at a dental practice the opportunity to reach the target audience may be missed. With a multidisciplinary approach to improving knowledge of early years’ dental care there are other opportunities to provide information to new parents. Parents may potentially join an NCT antenatal group and after birth, will receive close care from NHS midwives. Through both these services there is opportunity for improving parental education on dental care and dental visits. Providing information through non-dental avenues as well as dental avenues will lead to a widespread delivery of information and may reach parents who otherwise would not have knowledge of the campaign. This therefore helps spread awareness of the aims of the DCby1, consequently improving the uptake of the new campaign. V. Argent, Sussex