Quantification of dental caries by osteologists and odontologists-a validity and reliability study
As in modern populations, dental caries in early populations is linked to diet and general health. In order to record not only advanced disease states with frank cavitation of teeth but also early lesions, indicating the presence of the disease in a population, it is important that the archaeologist...
Saved in:
Published in | International journal of osteoarchaeology Vol. 20; no. 5; pp. 525 - 539 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Chichester, UK
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
01.09.2010
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | As in modern populations, dental caries in early populations is linked to diet and general health. In order to record not only advanced disease states with frank cavitation of teeth but also early lesions, indicating the presence of the disease in a population, it is important that the archaeologist can correctly detect and classify lesions of varying severity. The present study compares and contrasts quantification of dental caries by osteologists and odontologists. Four osteologists and four odontologists undertook visual and radiographic inspection of 61 teeth from three different sources: medieval, 19th century and modern. Separate sets of criteria were applied to disclose observer confidence in detecting a lesion and in estimating lesion extent. For validation of visual assessments, the teeth were sectioned. Radiographic assessments were validated by a specialist in dental radiography. The results disclosed that the odontologists in general showed greater sensitivity than the osteologists, correctly identifying carious lesions, but the osteologists had higher specificity, correctly identifying healthy teeth. Thus, the osteologists tend to overlook carious lesions (under‐diagnosis), while the odontologists tend to incorrectly record lesions in healthy teeth (over‐diagnosis). For both osteologists and odontologists, correct assessment was poorer for radiographs than for visual inspection. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | istex:CAC2D8230D79AA3DE5795095C9E590BF375CEE20 ark:/67375/WNG-H2BG7R9N-W This article was published online on May 26, 2009. An error was subsequently identified in the Author's name. This notice is included in the online and print versions to indicate that both have been corrected [April 13, 2010]. ArticleID:OA1079 |
ISSN: | 1047-482X 1099-1212 1099-1212 |
DOI: | 10.1002/oa.1079 |