An assessment of three contemporary dental caries epidemiological instruments: a critical review

Frencken, Jo E.; Giacaman, Rodrigo A.; Leal, Soraya Coelho

doi:10.1038/s41415-019-1081-1

Cited by 16 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 shows the proportion of random-effects pooled prevalence (%) [95% CI] of early childhood caries equal to 48 [43,53] across all studies. ECC (percentage and [95% CI]) prevalences at study level ranged from 16 [15,18] (Singapore) to 89 [87,91] (China).…”

Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The global prevalence of early childhood caries: A systematic review with meta‐analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria

Uribe

Innes

Maldupa

2021

Int J Paed Dentistry

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To estimate the global prevalence of early childhood caries using the WHO criteria. Design: Systematic review of studies published from 1960 to 2019. Data sources: PubMed, Google Scholar, SciELO, and LILACS. Eligibility criteria were articles using: dmft-WHO diagnostic criteria with calibrated examiners, probability sampling, and sample sizes. Study selection: Two reviewers searched, screened, and extracted information from the selected articles. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. The protocol is available on PROSPERO 2014 registration code CRD42014009578. Results: From 472 reports, 214 used WHO criteria and 125 fit the inclusion criteria. Sixty-four reports of 67 countries (published 1992-2019) had adequate data to be summarised in the meta-analysis. They covered 29 countries/59018 children. Global random-effects pooled prevalence was (percentage[95% CI]) 48[43, 53]. The prevalence by continent was Africa: 30[19, 45]; Americas: 48 [42, 54]; Asia: 52[43, 61]; Europe: 43[24, 66]; and Oceania: 82[73, 89]. Differences across countries explain 21.2% of the observed variance. Conclusions: Early childhood caries is a global health problem, affecting almost half of preschool children. Results are reported from 29 of 195 countries. ECC prevalence varied widely, and there was more variance attributable to between-country differences rather than continent or change over time. K E Y W O R D Searly childhood caries, epidemiology, oral health, preschool children, systematic review How to cite this article: Uribe SE, Innes N, Maldupa I. The global prevalence of early childhood caries: A systematic review with meta-analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria.

show abstract

Section: Synthesis Of Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The global prevalence of early childhood caries: A systematic review with meta‐analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria

Uribe

Innes

Maldupa

2021

Int J Paed Dentistry

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Firstly, it is done without X-ray imaging, and therefore it underestimates real caries prevalence and treatment needs for "Hidden caries" which are visible on a radiograph, but not on visual examination [7,8]. Moreover, some recommend exclusion of teeth with a past caries experience (restored/sealed/missing) from the calculation, since the inclusion of diseased and healthy teeth in one unit of expression may be misleading [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To that end, several scoring methods were developed to assess caries activity and severity for use in clinical research, clinical practice and for epidemiological purposes such as the following instruments: the PUFA [14] and its modification: the Pulpal Involvement-Roots-Sepsis Index [15,16], the Nyvad Criteria for Caries Lesion Activity and Severity Assessment [17], the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) [18] and its International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS) [12] (ICDAS/ICCMS), the Significant Caries Index (SiC) [19,20] and the Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST) instrument [21] and the CAST severity score [22]. While each of these caries assessment tools have limitations and advantages, they provide insights on disease stage [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Without treatment, the chance that a person with pulp-involved and abscessed teeth experiences pain or necrosis is high [10]. While the WHO instrument serves as an important screening tool [9], it is crucial to differentiate caries lesions in dentin that can be treated restoratively from those that require more complicated treatment [23]. Assessment of the prevalence of advanced carious lesions provides useful information about the extent of the disease and the urgent dental care required to plan services and compare the impact of treatment over time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SOS Teeth: Age and Sex Differences in the Prevalence of First Priority Teeth among a National Representative Sample of Young and Middle-Aged Adults

Almoznino

Abramovitz

Baruch

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: “SOS teeth” are defined as the first priority teeth for treatment, that have distinct cavitation reaching the pulp chamber or only root fragments are present. Objectives: To assess the prevalence and distribution of SOS teeth with regard to age and sex difference among young to middle-aged adults. Methods: This is a cross-sectional records-based study of a nationally representative sample, consisting of young to middle-aged military personnel, who attended the military dental clinics of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) for one year. SOS teeth definition corresponds to code number 6 of the “Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST)” as an instrument to assess dental caries. Data pertaining to age and sex were drawn from the central demographic database and that of SOS teeth were obtained from the Dental Patient Record (DPR). Results: The study included 132,529 dental records. The prevalence of patients with SOS teeth was 9.18 % (12,146/132,323). The number of teeth that were found to be SOS teeth was 18,300, i.e., 1.5 SOS teeth per “diseased” patient (18,300/12,146). The mean number of SOS teeth per the whole study population was 0.14 ± 0.52 and the range was 0–20. The mean number of SOS teeth per patient had a statistically significant negative correlation with age (p < 0.001; Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.997; 95% confidence interval: 0.997–0.998) and with male sex compared to females (p < 0.001; OR = 1.029 confidence interval: 1.023–1.036). Conclusion: Assessment of first priority SOS teeth may be part of the dentist’s work-up. It provides dentists and health authorities with useful information regarding urgent dental care needs to plan dental services.

show abstract

“…4 Furthermore, an accurate estimate of the proportion of people with untreated disease is essential for planning and evaluation of programmes and services. [4][5][6] One of the key challenges to estimate the burden of untreated caries is that many population surveys do not report the prevalence of untreated disease. 1,4 Such studies were excluded from burden estimation in the GBD 2010 study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating the prevalence of untreated caries in permanent teeth from the DMF index and lifetime caries prevalence

Anaya

Bernabé

2020

J Public Health Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To derive formulas to estimate the prevalence of untreated dental caries in permanent teeth based on the DMF index and lifetime caries prevalence. Methods: Data from participants, aged 5 years or older, in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011-2016 were analyzed. Dental caries was assessed at surface level with the Radike criteria, which matches the case definition of the Global Burden of Disease study. Participants' data were aggregated into 438 groups, based on survey strata and 5-year age brackets, to produce population estimates for the prevalence of untreated caries (DT > 0), DMFT, DMFS, DT, DS, and lifetime caries prevalence (DMFT>0). Conversion formulas were derived using fractional polynomials to characterize the association of each caries indicator with the prevalence of untreated caries. Results: The mean prevalence of untreated caries was 23.5 percent (SD: 12.9 percent, range: 1.0-72.3 percent). After adjustment for age, the prevalence of untreated caries was correlated with DMFT (r = 0.23), DMFS (r = 0.25), DT (r = 0.74), DS (r = 0.65) and lifetime caries prevalence (r = 0.18). Using fractional polynomial models adjusted for categorical age, the prevalence of untreated caries at population level could be estimated from DMFT with power 1 (linear form), DMFS with power 0.5, DT with power 0.5, DS with powers (0.5; 1) and lifetime caries prevalence with power 1. Conclusion:The prevalence of untreated caries in permanent teeth can be estimated from the DMF index and lifetime caries prevalence. These conversion formulas can facilitate the inclusion of more studies in estimation of the global burden of untreated caries in permanent teeth.

show abstract

An assessment of three contemporary dental caries epidemiological instruments: a critical review

Cited by 16 publications

References 33 publications

The global prevalence of early childhood caries: A systematic review with meta‐analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria

The global prevalence of early childhood caries: A systematic review with meta‐analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria

SOS Teeth: Age and Sex Differences in the Prevalence of First Priority Teeth among a National Representative Sample of Young and Middle-Aged Adults

Estimating the prevalence of untreated caries in permanent teeth from the DMF index and lifetime caries prevalence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About