A Comparison of Four Caries Risk Assessment Methods.

Introduction: Caries risk assessment (CRA) is essential as the basis for successful management of dental caries. Of the many published CRA tools, four well-known ones are CAMBRA, Cariogram, American Dental Association (ADA), and American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) CRAs. The predictive accuracy of CAMBRA and Cariogram CRA tools have been examined in clinical outcomes studies in thousands of patients and the tools are widely used all over the world. The purpose of the present paper is three-fold, namely (1) to briefly review, compare and contrast these four CRA methods, (2) to provide a concise method for CRA introducing a quantitative component to the CAMBRA forms (CAMBRA 123), and (3) to guide the choice of CRA methods that will support caries management decisions. Comparison of Caries Risk Assessment Methods: In the present evaluation, the above-mentioned four CRA methods for ages 0-6 years and 6 years-adult were compared using 26 hypothetical patients (13 per age group). Comparison results show that Cariogram and CAMBRA categorized patients into identical risk categories. Each of the ADA and AAPD tools gave different results than CAMBRA and Cariogram in several comparison examples. CAMBRA 123 gave the same caries risk level results as the Cariogram and the CAMBRA methods for all hypothetical patients for both age groups. Conclusions: Both the Cariogram and the CAMBRA CRA methods are equally useful for identifying the future risk of dental caries. CAMBRA 123 shows promise as an easy-to-use quantitative method for CRA in clinical practice. The health care providers will be the ones to decide which CRA method will allow them to establish individualized, successful caries management therapies and how to combine these for the best care of their patients.

Caries Management by Risk Assessment: Results from a Practice-Based Research Network Study.

Thirty dentists with clinical practices outside of a university setting were trained and calibrated successfully in DMFS and ICDAS-scoring. This randomized, controlled, parallel-arm, double-blind 2-year clinical trial with individual-level caries risk assignment of 460 patients to standard of care as control versus active CAMBRA treatment as intervention demonstrated that caries risk level, as well as caries disease indicators, were significantly reduced in the CAMBRA intervention group compared to the controls at all recall time points.

Integrating Caries Management by Risk Assessment (CAMBRA) and Prevention Strategies Into the Contemporary Dental Practice.

In the past, the dental profession has adhered to a rigid tenet: remove decay from a tooth and then restore, a mindset that has been proverbially dubbed as "drill and fill." Today, dental caries is recognized as an infectious disease that affects children and adults throughout life. The philosophy of CAries Management By Risk Assessment, or CAMBRA®, represents a paradigm shift. The CAMBRA concept provides the dentist with scientific, evidence-based solutions with which to approach treatment of dental caries disease. This article reviews the current understanding of the caries balance, the process of demineralization and remineralization of tooth structure, caries risk assessment, and the different levels of caries risk. Adequate treatment protocols specifically related to the remineralization of non-cavitated lesions and CAMBRA validation studies are discussed.

Calibration of dentists for Caries Management by Risk Assessment Research in a Practice Based Research Network - CAMBRA PBRN.

BACKGROUND: To prove that Caries Management by Risk Assessment (CAMBRA) can be successfully implemented in dental practices outside of the university setting, dentists in the San Francisco Bay Area (CA) were approached to participate in a Practice Based Research Network (PBRN) study. The overall goal of the CAMBRA-PBRN study was to recruit 30 dentists to perform a two-year study involving approximately 900 patients. Goal of the calibration study was to standardize and calibrate dentists potentially participating in the CAMBRA-PBRN study. METHODS: To minimize inter-examiner variability in data collection, including classification of carious lesions and recording of existing restorations, participating dentists were trained and calibrated in accurate DMFS (decayed, missing, filled surfaces) charting. Dentists were also trained and calibrated to diagnose and differentiate between sound surfaces and non-cavitated caries lesions (International Caries Detection and Assessment - ICDAS scores 1 and 2) for posterior occlusal surfaces. Thirty dentists were calibrated to a single gold standard examiner (BJ) during 6 calibration sessions, between 2011 and 2014. Kappa statistics were used to determine inter-examiner reliability on 13 or more patients, aged 12-63 (average age 38 ± 15 years), per examiner during each session, resulting in 94 patient encounters over the course of all 6 sessions. To participate in the main study, examiners needed to achieve a minimum required kappa of 0.75. During the calibration process, examiners scored between 1036 and 2220 tooth surfaces. RESULTS: The kappa values (unweighted kappa) of the participating dentists compared to the gold standard examiner ranged from 0.75 to 0.90, with an average kappa of 0.84 ± 0.03. 90% of the examiners achieved overall kappa values above 0.8. However, separate reliability for assessment of non-cavitated lesions, as in other studies, was lower (0.55 ± 0.15). Multiple subcategories were evaluated. All dentists reached sufficient reliability values to proceed into the study; nevertheless, one dentist discontinued with the study due to scheduling conflicts. CONCLUSIONS: The high inter-examiner reliability results have shown that dentists who work in primarily non-research based practices can be effectively standardized and calibrated in data collection, based on specific guidelines created to anticipate potential research study scenarios.

Pediatric Caries Risk Assessment as a Predictor of Caries Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine cumulative dental treatment experience in a retrospective clinical cohort, according to baseline caries risk assessment (CRA) information. METHODS: Evaluated were electronic records from a university pediatric dental clinic (2009 to 2014) of new, six- to 72- month-old patients who were not treated under sedation or general anesthesia (N equals 750). The mean number of teeth restored or extracted (two-year total and omitting the first 190 days post-baseline to discount initial treatment needs) was compared by baseline CRA category and CRA items (caries risk indicators, protective items, and clinical disease indicators). RESULTS: The CRA category was associated with mean treated teeth over two years (low equals 0.53, moderate equals 1.02, high/extreme equals 4.47) and post 190 days (low equals 0.51, moderate equals 0.89, high/extreme equals 2.11). Any treatment probability was greatest for high/extreme-risk children but not statistically significantly different between low- and moderate-risk. Age-standardized means were greater for all individual baseline clinical indicators and most risk indicators, but lower for most protective items (not statistically significantly for all items). Clinical indicators were the strongest outcome correlates. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, baseline risk information was associated with clinical outcomes. CRA can help identify patients needing more intensive caries prevention.

Increased public reimbursement for prophylactic visits with dentists associated with increased receipt of preventive dental services in children.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher reimbursement for children's preventive dentistry correlates with greater utilization of preventive dental care. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of National Survey of Children's Health 2011/2012 was conducted, combined with state Medicaid reimbursement rates for preventive dentistry. Analyses included prevalence, unadjusted odds ratios, and multivariable logistic regression for receipt of preventive dental services. RESULTS: Of all surveyed American children 1-17 years, almost 20 percent had not received preventive dental care in prior year; this percentage is even higher in those with public insurance. Each $10 increase in state reimbursement was associated with a 17 percent decrease in odds of children not receiving preventive services. CONCLUSIONS: Higher state reimbursement for preventive services may increase children's receipt of preventive dental care.

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

BACKGROUND: Caries 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. OBJECTIVES: Assess 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. METHODS: CRA 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. RESULTS: Thirteen 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. CONCLUSIONS: In 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.

Non-operative anti-caries agents and dental caries increment among adults at high caries risk: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines support non-operative preventives for dental caries management; yet, their use in practice is far from universal. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of non-operative anti-caries agents in caries prevention among high caries risk adults at a university clinic where risk-based caries management is emphasized. METHODS: This retrospective observational study drew data from the electronic patient records of non-edentulous adult patients deemed to be at high risk for dental caries during baseline oral evaluations that were completed between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012 at a dental university in the United States. We calculated and compared adjusted mean estimates for the number of new decayed or restored teeth (DFT increment) from baseline to the next completed oral evaluation (N = 2,724 patients with follow-up) across three categories of delivery of non-operative anti-caries agents (e.g., high-concentration fluoride toothpaste, chlorhexidine rinse, xylitol products): never, at a single appointment, or at ≥2 appointments ≥4 weeks apart. Estimates were adjusted for patient and provider characteristics, baseline dental status, losses-to-follow-up, and follow-up time. RESULTS: Approximately half the patients did not receive any form of non-operative anti-caries agent. Most that received anti-caries agents were given more than one type of product in combination. One-time delivery of anti-caries agents was associated with a similar DFT increment as receiving no such therapy (difference in increment: -0.04; 95% CI: -0.28, 0.21). However, repeated, spaced delivery of anti-caries agents was associated with approximately one decayed or restored tooth prevented over 18 months for every three patients treated (difference in increment: -0.35; 95% CI: -0.65, -0.08). CONCLUSIONS: These results lend evidence that repeatedly receiving anti-caries agents can reduce tooth decay among high-risk patients engaged in regular dental care.

Long-term adoption of caries management by risk assessment among dental students in a university clinic.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term adoption of a risk-based caries management program at a university dental clinic. The authors extracted data from electronic records of adult non-edentulous patients who underwent a comprehensive oral evaluation in the university predoctoral clinic from July 2007 through June 2014 (N=21,984). Consistency with caries management guidelines was measured as the percentage of patients with caries risk designation (low, moderate, high, or extreme) and the percentage of patients provided non-operative anti-caries agents within each designated caries risk category. Additionally, patient and provider characteristics associated with risk assessment completion and with provision of anti-caries therapy were identified. Results showed that the percentage of patients with documented caries risk grew steadily from 62.3% in 2007-08 to 92.8% in 2013-14. Overall, receipt of non-operative anti-caries agents increased with rising caries risk, from low (6.9%), moderate (14.1%), high (36.4%), to extreme (51.4%), but percentages were stable over the study period. Younger patients were more likely to have a completed risk assessment, and among high- and extreme-risk patients, delivery of anti-caries therapy was more common among patients who were younger, identified as Asian or Caucasian, received public dental benefits, or were seen by a student in the four-year DDS program or in the final year of training. These results demonstrate that extensive compliance in documenting caries risk was achieved within a decade of implementing risk-based clinical guidelines at this dental school clinic. Caries risk was the most strongly associated of several factors related to delivery of non-operative therapy. The eventual success of this program suggests that, in dental education, transition to a risk-based, prevention-focused curriculum may require a long-term commitment.

How do dental students determine patients' caries risk level using the Caries Management By Risk Assessment (CAMBRA) system?

Research has demonstrated the validation of specific caries risk assessment (CRA) systems, but little is known about how dental practitioners assign a caries risk level to their patients. The aim of this study was to explore dental students' decision making in caries risk assignment when using the Caries Management By Risk Assessment (CAMBRA) system. Multiple correspondence analysis and chi-squared automated interaction detector analysis were performed on data collected retrospectively for a period of six years (2003-09) at the University of California, San Francisco predoctoral dental clinic. The study population consisted of 12,952 patients from six years of age through adult who received a baseline CRA during the period, were new to CAMBRA, and had not received any prior CAMBRA recommendations. The results showed variation in decision making and risk level assignment, illustrated by the range of percentages for the three scores (low, moderate, and high/extreme caries risk) when CRA was assigned for the first time. For those first-time CRAs, decision making was mainly based on four factors: cavities or caries lesions into dentin on radiograph, restorations during the last three years due to caries, visible heavy plaque, and interproximal lesions into enamel (by radiographs). This study's findings provide important data regarding one group of CAMBRA users and thus contribute to the development of knowledge about the implementation of caries risk assessment in contemporary dental practice.

Baseline caries risk assessment as a predictor of caries incidence.

UNLABELLED: Few studies have evaluated clinical outcomes following caries risk assessment in large datasets that reflect risk assessments performed during routine practice. OBJECTIVES: From clinical records, compare 18-month caries incidence according to baseline caries risk designation. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from electronic records of non-edentulous adult patients who completed an oral examination and caries risk assessment (CRA) at a university instructional clinic from 2007 to 2012 (N=18,004 baseline patients). The primary outcome was the number of new decayed/restored teeth from the initial CRA to the ensuing oral examination, through June 30, 2013 (N=4468 patients with follow-up). We obtained doubly-robust estimates for 18-month caries increment by baseline CRA category (low, moderate, high, extreme), adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, payer type, race/ethnicity, number of teeth), provider type, and calendar year. RESULTS: Adjusted mean decayed, restored tooth (DFT) increment from baseline to follow-up was greater with each rising category of baseline caries risk, from low (0.94), moderate (1.26), high (1.79), to extreme (3.26). The percentage of patients with any newly affected teeth (DFT increment>0) was similar among low-risk and moderate-risk patients (cumulative incidence ratio, RR: 1.01; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.83, 1.23), but was increased relative to low-risk patients among high-risk (RR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.52), and extreme-risk patients (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.23, 1.87). CONCLUSIONS: These results lend evidence that baseline caries risk predicts future caries in this setting, supporting the use of caries risk assessment to identify candidate patients for more intensive preventive therapy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Identification of patients at greater risk for future caries helps clinicians to plan appropriate personalized care. In this study, a multifactorial approach to caries risk assessment effectively stratified patients into groups of higher or lower caries propensity. Dentists can apply risk assessment in practice antecedent to patient-tailored caries management.

Quality assurance study of caries risk assessment performance by clinical faculty members in a school of dentistry.

The goal of this quality assurance study was to explore the decision making of clinical faculty members at the University of California, San Francisco School of Dentistry predoctoral dental clinic in terms of caries risk level assignment using the caries risk assessment (CRA) as part of the Caries Management by Risk Assessment (CAMBRA) concept. This research was done in part to determine if additional training and calibration were needed for these faculty members. The study tested the reliability and reproducibility of the caries risk levels assigned by different clinical teachers who completed CRA forms for simulated patients. In the first step, five clinical teachers assigned caries risk levels for thirteen simulated patients. Six months later, the same five plus an additional nine faculty members assigned caries risk levels to the same thirteen simulated and nine additional cases. While the intra-examiner reliability with weighted kappa strength of agreement was very high, the inter-examiner agreements with a gold standard were on average only moderate. In total, 20 percent of the presented high caries risk cases were underestimated at caries levels too low, even when obvious caries disease indicators were present. This study suggests that more consistent training and calibration of clinical faculty members as well as students are needed.

Risk assessment - can we achieve consensus?

OBJECTIVE: The object of this conference paper was to review and discuss caries risk assessment in general practice from the questions i) 'Why', ii) 'When', and iii) 'How'. METHOD: Narrative review. RESULTS: i) Patient caries risk assessment is the basic component in the decision-making process for adequate prevention and management of dental caries and for determination of individual recall intervals. ii) Caries risk assessment should always be performed at a child's first dental visit and then regularly throughout life, and especially when social or medical life events are occurring. iii) There are several risk assessment methods and models available for but the evidence for their validity is limited. Although there is no clearly superior method for predicting future caries, the use of structured protocols combining socioeconomy, behavior, general health, diet, oral hygiene routines, clinical data, and salivary tests or computer-based systems are considered best clinical practice. The accuracy ranges between 60% and 90%, depending on age. Caries risk assessment is more effective in the selection of patients at low risk than those with high caries risk. CONCLUSION: As evidence suggests that past caries experience is far from ideal but the most important single risk component for more caries at all ages, any clinical sign of likely active demineralization on smooth, occlusal, and proximal tooth surfaces should be taken as a signal for the implementation of individually designed preventive and disease management measures.

Caries management by risk assessment.

Caries disease is multifactorial. Whether caries disease will be expressed and damage dental hard tissue is dependent on the patient's own unique make-up of pathogenic risk factors and protective factors. Objectives This manuscript will review the science of managing caries disease based on assessing caries risk. Methods The caries balance/imbalance model and a practical caries risk assessment procedure for patients aged 6 years through adult will illustrate how treatment options can be based on caries risk. Results Neither the forms nor the clinical protocols are meant to imply there is currently only one correct way this can be achieved, rather are used in this manuscript as examples only. Conclusions It is important to have the forms and protocols simple and easy to understand when implementing caries management by risk assessment into clinical practice. The science of CAMBRA based on the caries balance/imbalance model was reviewed and an example protocol was presented.

Validation of the CDA CAMBRA caries risk assessment--a six-year retrospective study.

The present manuscript presents the results of a six-year retrospective study validating caries risk assessment in a caries management by risk assessment program in a large predominantly adult patient population seeking dental care. CRA was successful in accurately identifying patients at high caries risk. Caries risk assessment in a CAMBRA program is a good clinical tool for everyday dental practice.

Changing the face and practice of dentistry: a 10-year plan.

Jan. 7 through 9, 2011, the California Dental Association Foundation hosted a symposium on caries management by risk assessment in which a diverse range of stakeholders from across the nation gathered to discuss current and future status of CAMBRA. The consensus of the group was to develop a national strategic plan for CAMBRA implementation which will chart the course to improve the standard in caries disease management within the next decade. This paper represents the initial start of this living document.

Caries risk assessment and management for the prosthodontic patient.

Prosthodontic patients are often at a high risk for caries, and assessing that risk prior to treatment is important. Historically, the nature of dental education and clinical practice has oriented clinicians toward recognizing and correcting the damaging effects of caries, rather than actively assessing and managing caries risk potential. New developments have led to better diagnostics and protocols for caries management, although one adapted to the specific needs of the prosthodontic patient has not been proposed. Our purpose is to outline caries risk assessment and management for the prosthodontic patient.

Pediatric dental care: prevention and management protocols based on caries risk assessment.

Recent increases in caries prevalence in young children, especially among minorities and the economically disadvantaged, highlight the need for early establishment of dental homes and simple, effective infant oral care preventive programs for all children as part of a medical disease prevention management model. This article presents an updated approach and practical tools for pediatric dental caries management by risk assessment in an effort to stimulate greater adoption of infant oral care programs among clinicians and early establishment of dental homes for young children. [corrected]

Implementing caries risk assessment and clinical interventions.

This article suggests a practical methodology to implement the scientific information presented in the earlier articles into clinical practice. The Caries Balance/Imbalance Model and a practical caries risk assessment procedure for patients aged 6 years through adult illustrate evidence-based treatment options. Neither the forms nor the clinical protocols are meant to imply that there is currently only one correct way that this can be achieved; they are used in this article only as examples.

Caries management by risk assessment: implementation guidelines.

ACT This consensus statement supports implementation of caries management by risk assessment in clinical practice by using the following principles: modification of the oral flora, patient education, remineralization, and minimal operative intervention. The statement includes a list of supporters.