Are standardised caries risk assessment models effective?

Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus and Embase were searched from 2000 to 2016.Study selectionA search strategy was developed to identify randomised clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, comparative studies, validation studies and evaluation studies that tested standardised caries risk assessment (CRA) models. There was no restriction with respect to patients' age, but caries data should have been recorded using the Decayed, Missing, Filled Tooth/Surface (DMFT/S) or the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) indices.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently assessed the papers for inclusion, carried out data extraction and the papers' methodological quality using a customised quality assessment tool developed by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and Research Triangle Institute International for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. For comparison between studies, the caries values were organised in two-by-two tables from which sensitivity, specificity values and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsA total of 1239 papers were retrieved of which 32 were included. The most frequent CRA model investigated was the Cariogram. Sixteen studies were carried out on children and 12 on adults. The results showed an association between the risk determined by the model and the actual caries status and/or the development of new carious lesions, this association being statistically significant. With respect to the quality of the studies included in the review, 19 were classified as of good quality, while eight and five were judged as of fair and poor, respectively. On the basis of seven studies, it was observed that Cariogram sensibility varied from 41.0 to 75.0, while its specificity ranged from 65.8 to 88.0.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to assert that CRA models are effective in determining patients' actual caries risk or in predicting their probability of developing new carious lesions. Moreover, the validity of standardised CRA models is still limited.