Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27403458›Full record

ArticleJDR clinical and translational research2016

Caries Risk Assessment Item Importance: Risk Designation and Caries Status in Children under Age 6.

Benjamin W Chaffee, John D B Featherstone, Stuart A Gansky, Jing Cheng, Ling Zhan

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JDR clinical and translational research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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
  3. Article
  4. 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
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Benjamin W ChaffeeUniversity of California San Francisco, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, 3333 California St. Suite 495 Box 1361, San Francisco, CA 94143, benjamin.chaffee@ucsf.edu.
John D B FeatherstoneUniversity of California San Francisco, john.featherstone@ucsf.edu.
Stuart A GanskyUniversity of California San Francisco, stuart.gansky@ucsf.edu.
Jing ChengUniversity of California San Francisco, jing.cheng@ucsf.edu.
Ling ZhanUniversity of California San Francisco, ling.zhan@ucsf.edu.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

Clinical and Transtional Science InstituteKL2TR000143 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI GRANDIS, JENNIFER RUBIN · 2012 to 2015
$11.9M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000143
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaries risk assessment (CRA) is widely recommended for dental caries management. Little is known regarding how practitioners use individual CRA items to determine risk and which individual items independently predict clinical outcomes in children under age 6-years.

objectivesAssess the relative importance of pediatric CRA items in dental providers' decision-making regarding patient risk and in association with clinically evident caries, cross-sectionally and longitudinally.

methodsCRA information was abstracted retrospectively from electronic patient records of children initially ages 6-72 months at a university pediatric dentistry clinic (N=3810 baseline; N=1315 with follow-up). The 17-item CRA form included caries risk indicators, caries protective items, and clinical indicators. Conditional random forests classification trees were implemented to identify and assign variable importance to CRA items independently associated with baseline high-risk designation, baseline evident tooth decay, and follow-up evident decay.

resultsThirteen individual CRA items, including all clinical indicators and all but one risk indicator, were independently and statistically significantly associated with student/resident providers' caries-risk designation. Provider-assigned baseline risk category was strongly associated with follow-up decay, which increased from low (20.4%), moderate (30.6%), to high/extreme risk patients (68.7%). Of baseline CRA items, before adjustment 12 were associated with baseline decay and 7 with decay at follow-up; however, in the conditional random forests models, only the clinical indicators (evident decay, dental plaque, and recent restoration placement) and one risk indicator (frequent snacking) were independently and statistically significantly associated with future disease, for which baseline evident decay was the strongest predictor.

conclusionsIn this predominantly high-risk population under caries-preventive care, more individual CRA items were independently associated with providers' risk determination than with future caries status. These university dental providers considered many items in decision-making regarding patient risk, suggesting that in turn, these comprehensive CRA forms could also aid individualized care, linking risk assessment to disease management.

Indexed as

child dentistrydecision-makingdental cariesepidemiologypreschool childrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID27403458
PMCPMC4937437
OpenAlexW2346863709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.