Negligible therapeutic impact, false-positives, overdiagnosis and lead-time are the reasons why radiographs bring more harm than benefits in the caries diagnosis of preschool children

Table 1 Multilevel logistic regression considering the results from different diagnostic strategies for decision to restore the dental surfaces and occurrence of a new operative intervention during the follow-up

Explanatory variables	Univariate analyses	Multiple model 1**	Multiple model 2***
Explanatory variables	Unadjusted OR (95%CI)	Adjusted OR (95%CI)	Adjusted OR (95%CI)
Diagnostic results
Vis: positive; Rad: positive	1.00	1.00	1.00
Vis: positive; Rad: negative	0.78 (0.20–3.04)	0.85 (0.21–3.36)	0.85 (0.21–3.39)
Vis: negative; Rad: positive	4.52* (1.95–10.49)	6.12* (2.54–14.77)	8.62* (2.72–27.33)
Vis: negative; Rad: negative	0.09* (0.05–0.14)	0.13* (0.07–0.21)	0.23* (0.06–0.97)
Treatment performed
Non-restored	1.00		1.00
Restored	11.43* (7.28–17.92)		1.87 (0.49–7.16)
Dental surface
Proximal	1.00	1.00	1.00
Occlusal	1.91* (1.41–2.59)	1.28 (0.90–1.83)	1.29 (0.90–1.84)
Type of tooth
1st molar	1.00	1.00	1.00
2nd molar	0.52* (0.33–0.81)	0.55* (0.34–0.90)	0.55* (0.34–0.90)
Caries experience
dmf-s = 0–3	1.00	1.00	1.00
dmf-s > 3	8.71* (4.20–18.06)	5.35* (2.50–11.44)	5.37* (2.50–11.54)
Child’s age
3 or 4 years old	1.00	1.00	1.00
5 or 6 years old	0.69 (0.33–1.43)	0.43* (0.21–0.85)	0.42* (0.21–0.85)

OR, odds ratio; 95%CI, 95% confidence intervals; Vis, visual inspection method; Rad, radiographic method; dmf-s, number of dental surfaces from primary teeth decayed, missed or filled
^*Association statistically significant (p < 0.05)
^**Multiple model 1 included only the confounding variables according to our predetermined conceptual framework
^***Multiple model 2 included confounding variables and treatment performed as a possible mediator for failure occurrences

ISSN: 1472-6831