ArticleBMC oral health2021
Randomized clinical trial to evaluate two methods of caries risk assessment in schoolchildren: the CARDEC-PEL 04 study protocol.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03969628 (CARies DEtection in Children-Pelotas), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
CARies DEtection in Children-Pelotas (CARDEC-PEL): Comparison of Two Methods of Caries Risk Assessment in Children
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic Clinical Predictive Models for Dental Caries Using Artificial Intelligence: Methodological Considerations.Caries research · 2026Review
- Effects of COVID-19 on parental perception of children's oral health-related quality of life.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCaries risk assessment is an essential element for managing and preventing dental caries in children. Individual caries risk assessment can be conducted to evaluate the presence or absence of single factors, or using multivariate models, a combination of factors. The subject has been extensively studied, but no previous research has compared whether a more elaborate and individualized method of caries risk benefits the patient than more straightforward strategies. Thus, this protocol evaluates the efficacy of two risk assessment methods for caries control in children, a simplified method based on caries experience evaluation and a multivariate method described in the literature.
methodsThis is a randomized, double-blind, controlled, parallel-treatment trial protocol. Two groups will be tested for two forms of caries risk assessment: an individualized and detailed multivariate method based on the guidelines of the Caries Care International 4D and another simplified process, based only on caries experience in primary and/or permanent dentition, considering the presence of decayed, missing and filled teeth using the DMFT/dmft index. Participants will be children aged 8 to 11 years, followed up at 12 and 24 months. The primary outcome will be a composite outcome representing the number of tooth surfaces requiring operative intervention (account variable). In addition, the Shapiro-Wilk normality test and Student's t-test will be performed. A multivariate analysis using negative binomial regression will compare groups in the intention-to-treat population, considering a two-tailed significance level of 5%. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized clinical trial aiming to compare dental caries-related treatment and follow-up based on a detailed, multivariate and individualized assessment of caries risk in school-age children to a simpler risk assessment strategy based on caries experience. This study will define whether there are essential benefits to the patient that justify the choice of one method over the other. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT03969628. Registered on May 31th, 2019.
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.