Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online:

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         


ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 378-382
Comparison of two systems of tooth numbering among undergraduate dental students

Department of Pedodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Deepthi Kannan
Department of Pedodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.191885

Rights and Permissions

Background: Dental charting is the basis of treatment in dentistry. It should be recorded to know the presence of healthy or diseased, for communication purpose with the colleagues and also used for reference purpose. The three commonly used systems are universal system, Federae Dentale Internationale numbering system (FDI) system, and Palmer/Zsigmondy system. Although these systems are in practice there are lot of confusions in referring a tooth which leads to mismanagement which eventually terminates the clinician-patient relationship. Hence, a growing need of a new system to make dental charting simple, easy, and to avoid confusions is always present. Molar, incisor, canine, Akram, premolar (MICAP) a tooth numbering system that was introduced by Akram et al. in the year 2011. Aim: To assess the attitude of undergraduate students toward the MICAP system and their preference to use in identification of teeth. Materials and Methods: The undergraduate students who were involved in the study were briefed about the ICPM system through a lecture and demonstration. All the 155 undergraduate dental students were asked to number the teeth of given patients using both FDI and the ICAP system. The attitude of the students towards the new system was assessed using a validated questionnaire. Forty-one percentage of students agreed for the uniqueness of the system, and thirty-six percentage agreed that the system was easy to understand. Forty-six percent of students were unsure about the easiness of usage of MICAP system and 42% of students about the clinical applicability of MICAP system. Conclusion: MICAP system of tooth identification can be followed by the students if the system is included in the curriculum and repeatedly used for routine teeth identification.

Print this article     Email this article

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded152    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal