The evidence on the validity for existing systems for CRA is limited. It is unknown if the identification of high-risk individuals can lead to more effective long-term patient management that prevents caries initiation and arrests or reverses the progression of lesions. There is an urgent need to develop valid and reliable methods for caries risk assessment that are based on best evidence for prediction and disease management rather than opinions of experts.

The detection and management of non-cavitated caries is an essential aspect of preventive dentistry. Therefore, the EAPD encourages oral health care providers and caregivers to implement preventive practices that can arrest early caries and improve individual and public dental health.

There is a need for a structured, evidence based approach to care for older dental patients. The following article describes the development of the Seattle Care Pathway based upon a workshop held in 2013. An overview is provided on the key issues of older persons dental care including the demography shift, the concept of frailty, the need for effective prevention and treatment to be linked to levels of dependency and the need for a varied and well educated work force. The pathway is presented in tabular form and further illustrated by the examples in the form of clinical scenarios. The pathway is an evidence based, pragmatic approach to care designed to be globally applicable but flexible enough to be adapted for local needs and circumstances. Research will be required to evaluate the pathways application to this important group of patients

The aim of this study was to critically appraise the performance of detection methods for non-cavitated carious lesions (NCCLs). A detailed search of Medline (via OVID), the Cochrane Collaboration, Scielo and EMBASE identified 2054 publications. After title and abstract review by three investigators (JG, MT, AI), 124 publications were selected for further review. The final publications evaluated the following methods: Visual (V), Caries Lesion Activity Assessment (CLAA), Laser Fluorescence (LF), Radiographic (R), Fibre-optic Transillumination (FOTI), Electrical Conductance (EC) and Quantitative Light-induced Fluorescence (QLF). All included studies used histological assessment as a gold standard for in vitro studies or clinical/visual validation for the in vivo designs. They reported outcomes measures such as sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and reliability. Data were extracted from the selected studies independently by two reviewers and checked for errors. The quality of the studies was evaluated as described by Bader et al. (2002). Of the 124 articles, 42 were included that described 85 clinical assessments. Overall, the quality of evidence on detection methods was rated ‘poor’, except for EC that was rated ‘fair’. The SE rates were as follows: V (0.17–0.96), LF or DIAGNOdent (DD) (0.16–0.96), R (0.12–0.84), FOTI (0.21–0.96), EC (0.61–0.92) and QLF (0.82). The SP rates were as follows: V (0.46–1.0), LF (0.25–1.00), R (0.55–0.99), FOTI (0.74-0.88), EC (0.73–1.0) and QLF (0.92). There is a large variation in SE and SP values for methods and a lack of consistency in definition of disease and analytical methods. EC and QLF seem to be promising for detection of early lesions. For both cost and practicality considerations, visual methods should remain the standard for clinical assessment in dental practice.