Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Association between caries increment and caries risk model categories in longitudinal papers

From: Are standardized caries risk assessment models effective in assessing actual caries status and future caries increment? A systematic review

Authors (year) Age Study time (years) Subjects Caries increments Range Mean (Standard Deviation)
     Cariogram 0–20 21–40 41–60 61–80 81–100
Gao (2013) [36] C 1 485 dmft 2.67 (2.96) 2.02 (1.71) 1.56 (1.63) 0.77 (1.21) 0.34 (0.88)
Kemparaj (2014) [37] C 2 200 DMFT 0.54 (1.2) 0.43 (1.32) 0.39 (1.04) 0.34 (0.80) 0.06 (0.09)
     DMFS 0.79 (1.73) 0.73 (1.55) 0.48 (1.72) 0.39 (1.20) 0.09 (1.12)
Celik (2012) [43] A 2 100 DMFT 1.23 (0.86) 0.65 (0.81) 0.39 (1.02) 0.08 (0.28) 0 (0)
     DMFS 1.23 (0.86) 0.9 (0.97) 0.48 (1.6) 0.08 (0.28) 0 (0)
Petersson (2002) [32] C 2 392 DMFT 1.67 (1.44) 1.46 (2.20) 1.07 (1.36) 0.42 (0.90) 0.23 (0.61)
     DMFS 2.58 (1.83) 2.62 (4.11) 1.47 (1.81) 0.53 (1.24) 0.27 (0.70)
Petersson (2015) [44] A 3 982 DFT 1.00 (1.40) 0.84 (0.95) 0.82 (1.18) 0.53 (1.07) 0.24 (0.58)
Petersson (2010a) [40] C 2 392 DMFS 3.00 (a) 2.70 (a) 1.50 (a) 0.50 (a) 0.20 (a)
     DFS 1.99 (3.00) 1.7 (1.76) 1.59 (2.55) 0.85 (1.91) 0.29 (0.89)
Petersson (2004)b [34] C 2 392 DFS 1.30 (a) 1.30 (a) 0.70 (a) 0.30 (a) 0.10 (a)
  A 5 148 DFS 1.90 (a) 1.00 (a) 1.20 (a) 0.40 (a) 0 (a)
Campus (2012) [35] C 2 861 DS 1.20 (a) 1.20 (a) 0.10 (a) 0.20 (a) 0.10 (a)
     Cariogram 0–20 21–40 41–60 61–100
Chang and Kim (2014) [42] C 1.3 64 DMFT 2.97 (5.2) 1.28 (1.5) 1.36 (2.2) 0.44 (0.7)
     DMFS 5.81 (11.97) 1.28 (1.5) 3.27 (6.8) 0.44 (0.7)
Petersson (2003) [1] A 5   DMFS 16.21 (15.97) 7.36 (9.34) 7.96 (9.52) 5.23 (6.97)
     Cariogram 0–25 26–50 51–75 76–100
Twetman (2005) [33] C 3 64 DFS 8 (10.8) 3.4 (2.6) 2.6 (3.7) 0 (0)
     Cariogram 0–20 21–80 81–100
Zukanovic (2013) [41] C 3 70 DMFT 1.80 (1.79) 2.40 (2.36) 1.77 (1.88)
     DMFS 5.00 (7.07) 4.71 (4.34) 2.54 (2.44)
     Cariogram 0–40 41–100
Holgerson (2009) [15] C 5 125 dmfs/DMFS 2.40 (3.2) 0.10 (0.4)
     Cambra High Moderate Low
Gao (2013) [36] C 1 485 dmft 1.24 (1.58) 0.27 (0.68) 0.20 (0.76)
Chaffee (2015) [45] A 1.5 4468 DFT 1.74 (a) 1.16 (a) 1.01 (a)
     CAT High Moderate Low
Gao (2013) [36] C 1 485 dmft 0.79 (1.31) 0.08 (0.28) 0 (0)
Zukanovic (2013) [41] C 3 70 DMFT 2.19 (2.33) 2.60 (1.82) 2.38 (1.92)
     DMFS 4.54 (4.41) 3.80 (5.81) 3.13 (2.53)
     NUS-CRA Very High High Moderate Low Very Low
Gao (2013) [36] C 1 485 dmft 2.18 (1.87) 2.10 (1.63) 1.26 (1.38) 0.85 (1.11) 0.17 (0.69)
     PreViser High Moderate Low
Zukanovic (2013) [41] C 3 70 DMFT 2.35 (2.27) 1.92 (2.18) 2.18 (2.32)
     DMFS 5.04 (4.75) 3.08 (2.87) 2.82 (3.19)
  1. A Adults, C Children
  2. (a) indicates that Standard Deviation data were not described in the paper. The decimal places reported are those reported in each paper
  3. Petersson, (2004)b reports the increment for year of observation. Holgerson, (2009) and Petersson, (2010b) were excluded from the table since as no mean data for caries were present. Gao (2015) was excluded from the table as the data are the same as those reported for Gao, (2013)