Sir, I appreciate the innovation shown by R. Huang (Tooth surface recording; BDJ 2008; 204: 5). The system surely is good but at the same time is quite confusing. I would find it difficult to communicate to my colleagues using such a system, for example if I need to communicate or record a grossly decayed permanent mandibular first molar of the left side which has only the distal wall which is not involved, then I will have to designate it as 361235, which makes it a difficult task to actually correlate the six digit number with the walls involved by carious lesion. Similarly, in the case of two or more teeth involved with caries on more than one aspect for example 112, 37124, 47125, 36245, the trouble of communication will further increase. Also the system does not denote the severity of the lesion and has no criterion for root surface caries.

The refined system denoting the symbols poses the same problem of communication. However, it is a better idea to use this system on paper. Some standardisation will still be needed in this refined system. The author did not mention on which side (towards the midline or away from the midline) of the quadrant chart one should mention the symbols. The symbols for labial, lingual, mesial and distal are mentioned near the midline ie towards the mesial side. But the symbol for occlusal caries has been written on the distal side. One may write all the symbols on the mesial side and others may use the distal side for the same. If the method is made more standardised, it will be useful for recording the tooth surfaces but communication will still fail.