The objective of this study was to analyse the possibilities and limitations of using data drawn from electronic dental patient records (EDPRs) in monitoring dental health among adults in a northern Swedish county. Material and Methods: The study population comprised all 35-, 50-, 65- and 75-year-old patients who were examined and, where required, received treatment at the Public Dental Service (PDS) in Västerbotten, Sweden, in 2003 and in 2004. In total 2,497 patients in 2003, and 2,546 patients in 2004 met the inclusion criteria. As controls, 779 subjects randomly drawn from the adult population in the same age groups and from the same county were used. They participated in an oral health survey and were examined clinically between October 2002 and March 2003. Results: When oral health was estimated based on EDPRs the prevalence of edentulous subject was significantly underestimated, while the mean numbers of teeth and the mean values of sound teeth were significantly overestimated. No statistically significant difference was found in prevalence of primary decayed tooth surfaces (DS). The prevalence of filled teeth (FT) was fairly similar between the study samples. Registrations of periodontal status were mainly missing in the EDPRs. Since registrations related to temporomandibular disorders are not included in the T4 system its prevalence could no be assessed and accordingly not compared with the epidemiological sample. Conclusion: The study shows that clinical registration based on EDPRs is at present not accurate enough to be used as indicators of oral health status among adults in a community.The objective of this study was to analyse the possibilities and limitations of using data drawn from electronic dental patient records (EDPRs) in monitoring dental health among adults in a northern Swedish county. Material and Methods: The study population comprised all 35-, 50-, 65- and 75-year-old patients who were examined and, where required, received treatment at the Public Dental Service (PDS) in Västerbotten, Sweden, in 2003 and in 2004. In total 2,497 patients in 2003, and 2,546 patients in 2004 met the inclusion criteria. As controls, 779 subjects randomly drawn from the adult population in the same age groups and from the same county were used. They participated in an oral health survey and were examined clinically between October 2002 and March 2003. Results: When oral health was estimated based on EDPRs the prevalence of edentulous subject was significantly underestimated, while the mean numbers of teeth and the mean values of sound teeth were significantly overestimated. No statistically significant difference was found in prevalence of primary decayed tooth surfaces (DS). The prevalence of filled teeth (FT) was fairly similar between the study samples. Registrations of periodontal status were mainly missing in the EDPRs. Since registrations related to temporomandibular disorders are not included in the T4 system its prevalence could no be assessed and accordingly not compared with the epidemiological sample. Conclusion: The study shows that clinical registration based on EDPRs is at present not accurate enough to be used as indicators of oral health status among adults in a community.