Are standardized caries risk assessment models effective in assessing actual caries status and future caries increment? A systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundAssessing caries risk is an essential element in the planning of preventive and therapeutic strategies. Different caries risk assessment (CRA) models have been proposed for the identification of individuals running a risk of future caries. This systematic review was designed to evaluate whether standardized caries risk assessment (CRA) models are able to evaluate the risk according to the actual caries status and/or the future caries increment.MethodsRandomized clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, comparative studies, validation studies and evaluation studies, reporting caries risk assessment using standardized models (Cariogram, CAMBRA, PreViser, NUS-CRA and CAT) in patients of any age related to caries data recorded by DMFT/S or ICDAS indices, were included. PubMed, Scopus and Embase were searched from 2000 to 2016. A search string was developed. All the papers meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to a quality assessment.Results One thousand three-undred ninety-two papers were identified and 32 were included. In all but one, the Cariogram was used both as sole model or in conjunction with other models. All the papers on children (n = 16) and adults (n = 12) found a statistically significant association between the risk levels and the actual caries status and/or the future caries increment. Nineteen papers, all using the Cariogram except one, were classified as being of good quality. Three of four papers comprising children and adults found a positive association. For seven of the included papers, Cariogram sensibility and specificity were calculated; sensibility ranged from low (41.0) to fairly low (75.0), while specificity was higher, ranging from 65.8 to 88.0. Wide 95% confidence intervals for both parameters were found, indicating that the reliability of the model differed in different caries risk levels.ConclusionsThe scientific evidence relating to standardized CRA models is still limited; even if Cariogram was tested in children and adults in few studies of good quality, no sufficient evidence is available to affirm the method is effective in caries assessment and prediction. New options of diagnosis, prognosis and therapy are now available to dentists but the validity of standardized CRA models still remains limited.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-018-0585-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improving Oral–Systemic Healthcare through the Interoperability of Electronic Medical and Dental Records: An Exploratory Study

“…This suggests that physicians desire a more scoping summative metric of patients' oral health, rather than the more detailed dental health information listed in the problem list or odontogram. While metrics of risk assessment, such as Caries Management by Risk Assessment (CAMBRA), 34 and subjective measures such as the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life 35 have been validated, their applicability to medical providers has not been studied; these tools only encapsulate one aspect of oral health, rather than providing a succinct picture of oral health status that may be of value to medical providers. Recent attempts to derive a standard set of oral health outcomes, such as by the International Consortium for Abbreviations: DMD, Doctor of Dental Medicine; MD, Doctor of Medicine.…”

Minimal intervention dentistry for partially dentate older adults

“…They suggested that the Cariogram had moderate‐to‐good ability at determining level of caries risk in older adults, but more work is required to determine whether CRA can sufficiently identify high‐risk groups and influence their management strategy. This was confirmed in a more recently published review, and this paper highlighted the lack of consistency in reporting and paucity of RCTs . More recently, in a prospective randomised study of root caries in elderly patients, Hayes et al showed that patients categorised as highest level of risk by the Cariogram at baseline did indeed have the highest root caries incidence 24 months later .…”

“…This was confirmed in a more recently published review, and this paper highlighted the lack of consistency in reporting and paucity of RCTs. 23 More recently, in a prospective randomised study of root caries in elderly patients, Hayes et al showed that patients categorised as highest level of risk by the Cariogram at baseline did indeed have the highest root caries incidence 24 months later. 24 Care strategies can be tailored more accurately when level of risk is systematically and correctly identified.…”

Infiltration and Sealing for Managing Non-Cavitated Proximal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Thus, conducting a caries risk assessment beforehand is vital and should be considered a prerequisite. A caries risk assessment would help in caries management and oral care plans [55,56]. In most of the included studies, caries risk levels was evaluated based on the Cariogram or modi ed Cariogram.…”