4.5 Article

Caries risk assessment in young adults: a 3 year validation of the Cariogram model

Journal

BMC ORAL HEALTH
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-15-17

Keywords

Lactobacilli; Mutans streptococci; Risk factors; Saliva

Funding

  1. Skane Region
  2. Swedish Patent Revenue Research Fund for Preventive Odontology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To validate baseline caries risk classifications according to the Cariogram model with the actual caries development over a 3-year period in a group of young adults living in Sweden. Methods: The study group consisted of 1,295 19-year-old patients that completed a comprehensive clinical baseline examination, including radiographs and salivary tests. An individual caries risk profile was computed and the patient was placed in one of five risk categories. After 3 years, 982 patients (75.8%) were re-examined and caries increment for each patient was calculated. The outcome was expressed as sensitivity, specificity and predictive values and compared with a risk assessment scheme used in Public Dental Service. Results: The drop-outs displayed more risk factors and a significantly higher caries burden at baseline compared with those that remained in the project (p < 0.05). There was a strong association between the Cariogram risk categories and the 3-year caries increment on cavity level but the predictive values were modest. The high or very high caries risk categories yielded high specificities (>90%) but poor sensitivities. The low risk groups displayed higher sensitivities on expense of impaired specificities. No combinations proved clinically useful values according to Yuoden's index. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, the computer-based Cariogram did not perform better than a caries risk assessment scheme based on past caries experience and caries progression, over a 3-year period in young adults.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available