Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Jul 16;18(1):123.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0585-4.

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

Maria Grazia Cagetti  1   2 , Giuliana Bontà  3 , Fabio Cocco  4   5 , Peter Lingstrom  6 , Laura Strohmenger  3   4 , Guglielmo Campus  4   5
Affiliations

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

Maria Grazia Cagetti et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: Assessing 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.

Methods: Randomized 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.

Conclusions: The 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.

Keywords: Dental caries; Dental caries susceptibility; Dental health surveys; Review; Risk assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable as this paper is a systematic review.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. There are no financial completing interests as we have not received any grants. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Petersson GH, Fure S, Bratthall D. Evaluation of a computer-based caries risk assessment program in an elderly group of individuals. Acta Odontol Scand. 2003;61:164–171. doi: 10.1080/00016350310002261. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Trottini M, Bossu M, Corridore D, Ierardo G, Luzzi V, Saccucci M, Polimeni A. Assessing risk factors for dental caries: a statistical modeling approach. Caries Res. 2015;49:226–235. doi: 10.1159/000369831. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tellez M, Gomez J, Pretty I, Ellwood R, Ismail AI. Evidence on existing caries risk assessment systems: are they predictive of future caries? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013;41:67–78. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Senneby A, Mejare I, Sahlin NE, Svensäter G, Rohlin M. Diagnostic accuracy of different caries risk assessment methods. A systematic review. J Dent. 2015;43:1385–1393. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.10.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhang Q, van Palenstein Helderman WH. Caries experience variables as indicators in caries risk assessment in 6-7-year-old Chinese children. J Dent. 2006;34:676–681. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.12.010. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types