‘TT’ (Tikku and Tikku) System: A Simple and Novel Tooth NumberingSystem for Permanent and Deciduous Teeth

Several systems for designating and encoding teeth have been used in dentistry for more than 130 years. [1] In our profession, patients are the primary stakeholders. However, the prevailing tooth numbering system, like the Federation Dentaire Internationale (FDI), is designed focussing the clinicians and does not include the perspective of patients, who have little idea regarding the depicted number of the tooth to be treated, written on the prescription given to them. Our undergraduate students also often get confused during their clinical work regarding the designated four segments in the current FDI tooth numbering system. This sometimes results in misinterpretation, leading to clinical mishaps. This innovative TT (Tikku and Tikku) system has been designed to fulfil the requirement for a more simpler and coherent system that is self?reflecting and includes the perception of the patients or any other concerned non?dental professional so that they relate easily to this system. Named after its inventors, the TT tooth numbering system has a simple and unique design that can also be implemented for wide clinical and forensic applications.

Applicability of new proposed novel tooth numbering system for primary teeth An observational study

Objective: The aim of the present study was to check the reliability and applicability of new proposed tooth numbering system (TNS) for primary teeth that will aid the dentist to overcome the disadvantages of existing TNS and enable to note the primary teeth in an easier and more precise way. Study Design: This observational questionnaire survey was conducted in an institution consisting 11 questions in English format. Four hundred samples were randomly selected which included under graduates, postgraduates, and faculty. Self-structured questionnaires were given in order to assess the reliability and applicability of the new proposed TNS. Data obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Chi-square test was used to compare the responses between different study groups, and P value was set at P < 0.05. Results: According to the participants, the new TNS maintains the anatomical midline, easily readable, written and typed though required extra concentration. It is easy to converse and can be followed by beginners. It does not require extra timing and can be used routinely. With mixed dentition, it does not take more time, but there are chances of confusion or overlap while recording. Conclusion: The new Havale's Alphaneumarical Dental Notation system can be used routinely by undergraduates and postgraduates as well as clinicians and can apply or follow the system in regular dental practice.

Comparison of two systems of tooth numbering among undergraduate dental students.

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.