Article

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.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Gerardo Maupomé, Mar 25, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
113 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The application of the Caries Management System (CMS) for children and adolescents follows the rationale underlying the application of the CMS for adults. Briefly, the CMS is a 10-step, risk-based, non-invasive strategy to arrest and remineralize early lesions and to enhance caries primary prevention. The method for assessing each patient's diet, plaque distribution, and signs of caries as shown in bitewing radiograph images, follows the protocols for adults. Protocols presented here relating to caries risk assessment, lesion diagnosis and management, and patient recall are specific for children and adolescents. Fundamentally, non-cavitated lesions in primary and especially permanent teeth are managed: (1) professionally by preservative non-invasive means, including fluoride varnish and sealants; and (2) daily home toothbrushing using fluoride toothpaste where the aim is to arrest lesion progression so that restorations will not be necessary. Monitoring of lesions through the review of clinical signs and bitewing images is the means for assessing caries activity. For those who fail to respond to advice to reduce cariogenic exposures and continue to develop new lesions at a steady or increased rate, a more intensified programme is required; their higher risk status is confirmed and treatment follows the corresponding protocol.
    Australian Dental Journal 12/2009; 54(4):381-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01165.x · 1.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to measure the validity and reliability of a multifactorial Risk Factor Model developed for use in predicting future caries risk in Nevada adolescents in a public health setting. This study examined retrospective data from an oral health surveillance initiative that screened over 51,000 students 13-18 years of age, attending public/private schools in Nevada across six academic years (2002/2003-2007/2008). The Risk Factor Model included ten demographic variables: exposure to fluoridation in the municipal water supply, environmental smoke exposure, race, age, locale (metropolitan vs. rural), tobacco use, Body Mass Index, insurance status, sex, and sealant application. Multiple regression was used in a previous study to establish which significantly contributed to caries risk. Follow-up logistic regression ascertained the weight of contribution and odds ratios of the ten variables. Researchers in this study computed sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PVP), negative predictive value (PVN), and prevalence across all six years of screening to assess the validity of the Risk Factor Model. Subjects' overall mean caries prevalence across all six years was 66%. Average sensitivity across all six years was 79%; average specificity was 81%; average PVP was 89% and average PVN was 67%. Overall, the Risk Factor Model provided a relatively constant, valid measure of caries that could be used in conjunction with a comprehensive risk assessment in population-based screenings by school nurses/nurse practitioners, health educators, and physicians to guide them in assessing potential future caries risk for use in prevention and referral practices.
    BMC Oral Health 05/2011; 11:18. DOI:10.1186/1472-6831-11-18 · 1.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Few studies have examined dentists' subjective ratings of importance of caries risk factors or tested whether dentists use this information in treatment planning. This study tested several hypotheses related to caries risk assessment (CRA) and individualized caries prevention (ICP). Data were collected as part of a questionnaire entitled 'Assessment of Caries Diagnosis and Caries Treatment', completed by 547 practitioners who belong to The Dental Practice-Based Research Network (DPBRN), a consortium of participating practices and dental organizations. Sixty-nine percent of DPBRN dentists perform CRA on their patients. Recently graduated dentists, dentists with busier practices, and those who believe a dentist can predict future caries were the most likely to use CRA. The association between CRA and individualized prevention was weaker than expected (r = 0.21). Dentists who perform CRA provide ICP to 57% of their patients, compared with 42% for dentists who do not perform CRA. Based on their responses to radiographic and clinical scenarios in the questionnaire, dentists who use CRA appear to use this information in restorative decisions. A substantial percentage of DPBRN dentists do not perform CRA, and there is not a strong linkage between its use and use of individualized preventive regimens for adult patients. More progress in the implementation of current scientific evidence in this area is warranted.
    Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology 07/2011; 39(6):564-73. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00626.x · 1.94 Impact Factor