Ashfaq Akram^{1, 2,}, Maher Fuad², Ulfat Bashir³, Thirupathi Vishnumukkala⁴, Melinda Madlena¹

Background: Universal system, Palmer notation and FDI system are used to record dental problems which give different numbers to same tooth. For example, central incisor is #8 (Universal system) and #11 (FDI system).Thus they create confusion in transferring dental information. A new tooth notation uses letters I- incisor, C-canine, P-premolar, M-molar (MICAP) and digits 1, 2, 3. The digits are printed as superscript and subscript on the relevant letters (I, C, P, M) to indicate the maxillary and mandibular teeth. Aim: to assess the learning of format of MICAP system by students of undergraduate dental degree and dental allied health programmes using a mock MICAP dental chart. Materials and Methods: A mock MICAP dental chart was prepared. Students of undergraduate dental degree [group A (n=39)] and dental allied health programme [group B (n=39)] who were further subdivided base on age such as [group 1=15-25 yrs, group 2=26-35 yrs, group 3=36-45 yrs], translated four MICAP symbols and vice versa in a cross sectional study after an hour lecture and video demonstration about the MICAP format. One way ANOVA and independent t test were performed to analyse the data. Results: Group A was better in translation of #¹C (maxillary right canine) than group B [mean difference 95% CI: -0.128 (-0.285, 0.028) p=0.001]. In terms of age, group 1 was better in translation of MICAP format (p<0.001) as compared to other groups. Participants >50% agreed that MICAP notation system was easy to understand. Conclusion: Format of new notation is easy to learn. Teeth can be identified by new method. However, additional data is required before the reliability of the system is suggested as alternate dental charting system.

permanent dentition, canine, dental charting, incisor, mock, molar, premolar