2019
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-019-00480-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A systematic review of risk assessment tools for early childhood caries: is there evidence?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These models consider socioeconomic factors, general health, behavior, diet, oral hygiene, and clinical factors including saliva. 97,123,[156][157][158] CRA is considered a part of the best practices in caries management decision-making, including recall intervals, 91,97,123,159 with desirable effects mostly overweighting the undesirable effects. 160 The multivariate risk models have shown moderate to good accuracy for early childhood caries and lower accuracy for children, adolescents, 123 and adults.…”
Section: Individual Caries Risk Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These models consider socioeconomic factors, general health, behavior, diet, oral hygiene, and clinical factors including saliva. 97,123,[156][157][158] CRA is considered a part of the best practices in caries management decision-making, including recall intervals, 91,97,123,159 with desirable effects mostly overweighting the undesirable effects. 160 The multivariate risk models have shown moderate to good accuracy for early childhood caries and lower accuracy for children, adolescents, 123 and adults.…”
Section: Individual Caries Risk Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, considering that the survey did not involve a clinical examination to detect early disease indicators (i.e., noncavitated carious lesions or white spots), and that the presence of active carious lesions (cavitated or not cavitated) put the subject at the high‐risk category, 33 there is a possibility that some students categorized themselves as low‐caries risk believing they did not have clinically visible noncavitated lesions. However, although CRA is a widely accepted and used canonical clinical procedure, 48,49 existent evidence has shown that no instrument can precisely and reliably predict caries risk 50‐52 . Therefore, all CRA methods should be considered subjective.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results from another Swedish County/Region presented in 2009 by Holgerson et al [31], where 2-year-olds were assessed with Cariogram and evaluated regarding caries at 7 years of age, showed a higher sensitivity (46%) but lower specificity (88%) than what was found in our study (14% and 97%, respectively). Cariogram is, anyhow, primarily designed for adults [47], why that method can possibly be developed further. Figure 1.…”
Section: Caries Risk Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%