Exploring the contributions of components of caries risk assessment guidelines.

School of Dentistry and Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA.
Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 1.94). 09/2008; 36(4):357-62. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00399.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine the relative contribution of current caries activity, past caries experience, and dentists' subjective assessment of caries risk classifications.
Administrative data from two dental plans were analyzed to determine dentists' risk classification, as well as current caries activity and previous caries experience at the time of the classification. The performance of these predictors in identifying patients who would experience subsequent caries was then modeled using logistic regression.
In both plans, current caries activity alone had relatively low sensitivity and high specificity in identifying patients who would experience subsequent caries. Sensitivity improved, but at the cost of specificity when previous caries experience was included in the models. Further improvement in sensitivity accrued when dentists' subjective assessment was included, but performance was different in the two plans in terms of false-positives.
Consideration of previous caries experience tends to strengthen the predictive power of caries risk assessments. Dentists' subjective assessments also tend to improve sensitivity, but overall accuracy may suffer.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Caries risk assessment forms the cornerstone for the successful application of a minimum intervention dentistry philosophy in the management of dental caries. Patients, particularly those with evidence of active dental caries at baseline, require a caries risk assessment to identify those risk factors that will most likely contribute to the progression of the carious disease process. Once identified, these factors should be eliminated or at least moderated to ensure the disease progression is stabilized before conservative and rehabilitative dental procedures are undertaken. Each individual will present with a slightly different caries risk profile and the principles of a patient centred approach to manage each case should be applied to the individual diagnostic and treatment planning phases of dental care. Current chairside technologies such as caries susceptibility and activity tests can be utilized to provide baseline and follow-up data to assist the dental practitioner in this task. However, clinician intuition or 'gut feeling' has been found to be a better prognostic indicator for future dental caries experience than present caries prediction instruments in most cases. As caries risk data are accumulated and refined at a population, community and individual level, the sensitivity and specificity of the caries risk assessment modelling will improve as will the positive predictive power of the final statistical model algorithm. It is likely that online caries predictive tools will be available for general dental practitioners in the not too distant future to help clinicians formulate accurate caries risk profiles for their patients.
    Australian Dental Journal 06/2013; 58 Suppl 1:26-34. · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous caries experience correlates to future caries risk; thus, early identification of lesions has importance for risk assessment and management. In this study, we aimed to determine if Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence (QLF) parameters-area (A [mm(2)]), fluorescence loss (F [%]), and Q [%×mm(2)]-obtained by image analyses can predict lesion progression. We secured consent from 565 children (from 5-13 years old) and their parents/guardians and examined them at baseline and regular intervals over 48 months according to the International Caries Detection Assessment System (ICDAS), yearly radiographs, and QLF. QLF images from surfaces with ICDAS 0/1/2/3/4 at baseline that progressed (N = 2,191) to cavitation (ICDAS 5/6) or fillings and surfaces that did not progress to cavitation/fillings (N = 4,141) were analyzed independently for A, F, and Q. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare means and slopes (changes over time) between surfaces that progressed and those that did not. QLF A, F, and Q increased at a faster rate for surfaces that progressed than for surfaces that did not progress (p = .0001), regardless of type of surface or baseline ICDAS score. AUC for ICDAS ranged from 0.65 to 0.80, but adding QLF information improved AUC (0.82-0.87, p < .0005). We concluded that faster changes in QLF variables can indicate lesion progression toward cavitation and be more clinically relevant than actual QLF values.
    Journal of dental research 05/2013; · 4.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the accuracy of the caries risk assessment system and performance of clinicians in their attempts to predict caries for children during routine practice. Longitudinal study. Data on caries risk assessment conducted by clinicians during routine practice while providing care for children in the South Australian School Dental Service (SA SDS) were collected from electronic patient records. Baseline data on caries experience, clinicians' ratings of caries risk status and child demographics were obtained for all SA SDS patients aged 5-15 years examined during 2002-2005. Children's caries incidence rate, calculated using examination data after a follow-up period of 6-48 months from baseline, was used as the gold standard to compute the sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) of clinicians' baseline ratings of caries risk. Multivariate binomial regression models were used to evaluate effects of children's baseline characteristics on Se and Sp. A total of 133 clinicians rated caries risk status of 71 430 children during 2002-2005. The observed Se and Sp were 0.48 and 0.86, respectively (Se+Sp=1.34). Caries experience at baseline was the strongest factor influencing accuracy in multivariable regression model. Among children with no caries experience at baseline, overall accuracy (Se+Sp) was only 1.05, whereas it was 1.28 among children with at least one tooth surfaces with caries experience at baseline. Clinicians' accuracy in predicting caries risk during routine practice was similar to levels reported in research settings that simulated patient care. Accuracy was acceptable in children who had prior caries experience at the baseline examination, while it was poor among children with no caries experience.
    BMJ Open 01/2014; 4(1):e004311. · 2.06 Impact Factor