Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26647391›Full record

ReviewJournal of dental research2016

Predicting Dental Caries Outcomes in Children: A "Risky" Concept.

K Divaris

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of dental research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Association Between Iron Deficiency Anemia and Dental Caries in Children: A Systematic Umbrella Meta-Analysis.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. A systematic review of risk assessment tools for early childhood caries: is there evidence?European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Pilot validation of the new Canadian Caries Risk Assessment Tool for preschoolers.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Assessment of overall caries risk and mode of birth delivery in infants and children with and without ECC: a cross-sectional study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Subtypes of early childhood caries predict future caries experience.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

K DivarisDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, NC, USA Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Health, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, NC, USA Kimon_Divaris@unc.edu.

Funding

Genome-Wide Association Study of Early Childhood CariesU01DE025046 · NIDCR · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI DIVARIS, KIMON · 2015 to 2019
$8.4M
NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE025046NIDCR NIH HHS U01DE025046
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, unprecedented gains in the understanding of the biology and mechanisms underlying human health and disease have been made. In the domain of oral health, although much remains to be learned, the complex interactions between different systems in play have begun to unravel: host genome, oral microbiome with its transcriptome, proteome and metabolome, and more distal influences, including relevant behaviors and environmental exposures. A reasonable expectation is that this emerging body of knowledge can help improve the oral health and optimize care for individuals and populations. These goals are articulated by the National Institutes of Health as "precision medicine" and the elimination of health disparities. Key processes in these efforts are the discovery of causal factors or mechanistic pathways and the identification of individuals or population segments that are most likely to develop (any or severe forms of) oral disease. This article critically reviews the fundamental concepts of risk assessment and outcome prediction, as they relate to early childhood caries (ECC)-a common complex disease with significant negative impacts on children, their families, and the health system. The article highlights recent work and advances in methods available to estimate caries risk and derive person-level caries propensities. It further discusses the reasons for their limited utility in predicting individual ECC outcomes and informing clinical decision making. Critical issues identified include the misconception of defining dental caries as a tooth or surface-level condition versus a person-level disease; the fallacy of applying population-level parameters to individuals, termed privatization of risk; and the inadequacy of using frequentist versus Bayesian modeling approaches to derive individual disease propensity estimates. The article concludes with the notion that accurate caries risk assessment at the population level and "precision dentistry" at the person level are both desirable and achievable but must be based on high-quality longitudinal data and rigorous methodology.

Indexed as

ChildDecision MakingDental CariesDental Caries SusceptibilityForecastingHumansPrecision MedicineRisk Assessmentdisease susceptibilityevidence-based dentistryoral healthpediatric dentistryrisk assessmentsystems biology

Identifiers

PMID26647391
PMCPMC4766957

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.