ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Caries Risk Assessment using Three Different Tools among Toddlers and Preschoolers.
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Early childhood caries remains a significant public health concern globally. Caries risk assessment (CRA) tools are essential for early identification and prevention, yet comparative evidence in young children is limited. Aim: To compare three CRA tools - American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD), American Dental Association (ADA) and Caries Management by Risk Assessment (CAMBRA) - in children aged 1-6 years. Settings and Design: Cross-sectional study at a tertiary care dental hospital in South India. Materials and Methods: One hundred and nineteen children (61 males, 58 females; mean age 2.8 ± 0.9 years) were examined. All three CRA tools were applied simultaneously by a single calibrated examiner. Risk categories were compared across age groups (<3 years vs. ≥3 years) and gender. Statistical Analysis Used: Cohen's kappa coefficient assessed inter-tool agreement. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests compared distribution ( Results: AAPD identified significantly more high-risk children (4.2%) than ADA and CAMBRA (0.8% each), most pronounced in children under 3 years (5.1% vs. 0%). ADA and CAMBRA showed almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.885, 98.3%), while AAPD showed moderate agreement with ADA (κ = 0.596) and CAMBRA (κ = 0.520). No significant differences were observed across age groups or gender ( Conclusion: All three tools are effective for pediatric CRA with varying sensitivity. AAPD may be more sensitive for early risk detection in toddlers, while ADA and CAMBRA demonstrate higher concordance. Tool selection should be guided by clinical context and whether sensitivity or specificity is prioritized.
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.