Herat University, Afghanistan
* Corresponding author
Herat University, Afghanistan
Herat University, Afghanistan
Herat University, Afghanistan

Article Main Content

Dental charting, referral notes, and dental financial claims are integral parts of dental practices for their smooth and effective usage. Currently, dental charting is proceeded by one of the three commonly used tooth notation systems, The Zsigmondy-Palmer, Federation Dentaire International, and American Dental Association. Although these systems have been used and adopted internationally, in practice, there is much confusion in referring to a tooth, which leads to mismanagement and eventually leads to confusion affecting the clinician-patient relationship. Hence, a growing need for a new system to make dental charting simple, secure, and void of confusion is always felt. In this experiment, we evaluated currently in use tooth notation systems and introduced three tooth numbering systems named based on the place of origin as the Herat Dentistry Faculty 1, Herat Dentistry Faculty 2, and Herat Dentistry Faculty 3 tooth notation systems. A questionnaire containing 17 questions was designed, a meeting was held with the participants where both systems were introduced, and the questionnaire was explained to them. The questionnaire was filled by a population of 481, among which 213 were randomly selected, and data were entered into SPSS. The results proved that the three newly suggested systems are more efficient in terms of learning and entering into patient files compared to traditionally in-use systems.

References

  1. Harris EF. Tooth-coding systems in the clinical dental setting. Dental Anthropology Journal. 2005; 18(2): 43-49.
     Google Scholar
  2. Garg N, Garg A. Textbook of operative Dentistry: Boydell & Brewer Ltd. 2010.
     Google Scholar
  3. Türp JC, Alt KW. Designating teeth: the advantages of the FDI's two-digit system. Quintessence international. 1995; 26(7).
     Google Scholar
  4. Grace M. Dental notation. British Dental Journal. 2000; 188(5): 229-229.
     Google Scholar
  5. Kannan D, Gurunathan D. Comparison of two systems of tooth numbering among undergraduate dental students. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2016; 27(4): 378.
     Google Scholar
  6. Pogrel M. Tooth notation. British Dental Journal. 2003; 195(7): 360-360.
     Google Scholar
  7. Cullingham P, Saksena A, Pemberton MN. Patient safety: reducing the risk of wrong tooth extraction. Br. Dent. J. 2017; 222(10): 759-763.
     Google Scholar
  8. Al-Johany SS. The tooth numbering system in Saudi Arabia: Survey. The Saudi Dental Journal. 2016; 28(4): 183-188.
     Google Scholar
  9. Akram A, Hamid AH, Razak J, Hock T. MICAP‐a novel system for identification and communication of dental problems. International Dental Journal. 2011; 61(1): 31-36.
     Google Scholar
  10. Lin P-L, Lai,Y-H, Huang P-W. An effective classification and numbering system for dental bitewing radiographs using teeth region and contour information. Pattern Recognition. 2010; 43(4): 1380-1392.
     Google Scholar
  11. Ahmed H, Musale P, El Shahawy O, Dummer P. Application of a new system for classifying tooth, root and canal morphology in the primary dentition. International Endodontic Journal. 2020; 53(1): 27-35.
     Google Scholar
  12. Havale R, Sheetal B, Patil R, Hemant Kumar R, Anegundi R, Inushekar K. Dental notation for primary teeth: a review and suggestion of a novel system. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2015; 16(2): 163-166.
     Google Scholar
  13. Pemberton MN, Ashley M. The use and understanding of dental notation systems in the UK and Irish dental hospitals. Br Dent J. 2017; 223(6): 429-434.
     Google Scholar
  14. Elderton R. Keeping up-to-date with tooth notation. British Dental Journal. 1989; 166(2): 55-56.
     Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson J. The Palmer notation system and its use with personal computer applications. British Dental Journal. 2005; 198(9): 551-553.
     Google Scholar
  16. Lee JS, Curley AW, Smith RA. Prevention of wrong-site tooth extraction: clinical guidelines. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2007; 65(9): 1793-1799.
     Google Scholar
  17. Yurdukoru B. Standardization of the tooth numbering systems. The Journal of the Dental Faculty of Ankara University. 1989; 16(3): 527.
     Google Scholar
  18. O'Connor J. Let's really standardize our tooth numbering system. Operative Dentistry. 1983; 8(2), 73-74.
     Google Scholar
  19. Kha M. Survey on Tooth Numbering. 2020.
     Google Scholar
  20. Manjunatha B. CHAPTER Tooth Numbering. Textbook of Dental Anatomy and Oral Physiology. 2012: 24.
     Google Scholar
  21. Yadav SS, Sonkurla S. Sarjeev's supernumerary tooth notation system: A universally compatible add-on to the Two-Digit system. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2013; 24(3): 395.
     Google Scholar
  22. Mahdi FP, Kobashi S. A Deep Learning Technique for Automatic Teeth Recognition in Dental Panoramic X-Ray Images Using Modified Palmer Notation System. Paper presented at the Congress on Intelligent Systems. 2020.
     Google Scholar
  23. Alt KW, Türp JC. Roll call: thirty-two white horses on a red field. The advantages of the FDI two-digit system of designating teeth. In Dental Anthropology. 1998: 41-55.
     Google Scholar
  24. Akram A, Fuad M, Bashir U, Vishnumukkala T, Madlena M. Learning of format of new tooth notation system-a pilot study. Int J Dent Sci Res. 2015; 3(4): 92-95.
     Google Scholar
  25. Pogrel M. Tooth notation. British Dental Journal. 2003; 195(7), 360-360.
     Google Scholar
  26. Blinkhorn AS, Choi CL, Paget HE. An investigation into the use of the FDI tooth notation system by dental schools in the UK. European Journal of Dental Education. 1998; 2(1): 39-41.
     Google Scholar
  27. Sharma D, Jhingta P, Bathla SC. Challenges in Dental Implant Identification and Need of Universal Dental Implant Identification, Numbering, and Nomenclature System. 2020.
     Google Scholar
  28. Toureno L, Park JH, Cederberg RA, Hwang EH, Shin JW. Identification of supernumerary teeth in 2D and 3D: review of literature and a proposal. Journal of Dental Education. 2013; 77(1): 43-50.
     Google Scholar
  29. Farahi A, Alfi D, Gateno J, Mupparapu M. A Need for a Unanimous Tooth Numbering System. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2015; 73(9), e53-e54.
     Google Scholar
  30. Saeed MHB, Khan AZ, Khan R, Gilani SBS, Malik FS, Akram A. Lecture method; a pilot study on comparing universal and micap notations. Professional Medical Journal. 2019; 26(4).
     Google Scholar
  31. Akram A, Salam A, Bashir U, Maarof N, Meerah SM. Lesson plan on a new method of teeth identification introduced at dental schools in Malaysia and Pakistan. Journal of Dental Education. 2012; 76(12), 1691-1696.
     Google Scholar
  32. Gabel AB, Ward ML. The American textbook of operative Dentistry: Lea & Febiger. 1947.
     Google Scholar