ArticleJDR clinical and translational research2016
Caries Risk Assessment Item Importance: Risk Designation and Caries Status in Children under Age 6.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using a Chatbot as an Alternative Approach for In-Person Toothbrushing Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- 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 · 2026Article
- Exploring the behavioural determinants of compliance in resilient high-caries-risk patients who improved caries severity.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Comparison of factors associated with the evidence-practice gap as perceived by Japanese and Brazilian dentists.Journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparison of traditional regression modeling vs. AI modeling for the prediction of dental caries: a secondary data analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Article
- A mixed methods approach to obtaining health care provider feedback for the development of a Canadian pediatric dental caries risk assessment tool for children <6 years.Frontiers in oral health · 2023Article
- Evidence-Based Caries Management for All Ages-Practical Guidelines.Frontiers in oral health · 2021Review
- Microbiota of interdental space of adolescents according to Risk of Caries: A cross-sectional study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- Models to Predict Future Permanent Tooth Caries Incidence in Children Using Primary Teeth Caries Experience.Pediatric dentistry · 2019Article
- The Oral Bacterial Microbiome of Interdental Surfaces in Adolescents According to Carious Risk.Microorganisms · 2019Article
- The Evidence for Caries Management by Risk Assessment (CAMBRA®).Advances in dental research · 2018Article
- Rebalancing the Caries Microbiome Dysbiosis: Targeted Treatment and Sugar Alcohols.Advances in dental research · 2018Review
- Pediatric Caries Risk Assessment as a Predictor of Caries Outcomes.Pediatric dentistry · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.