A comparison of subjective and objective caries risk assessment methods

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of public health dentistry, Karpaga vinayaga institute of dental sciences

2 KARPAGA VINAYAGA INSTITUTE I=OF DENTAL SCIENCES, THE TAMILNADU DR. MGR MEDICAL UNIVERSITY

3 Public health dentistry,Karpaga vinayaga institute of dental sciences

Abstract

Background: Dental caries is a serious public health problem significantly affecting oral health. Though there have been many advancements in treating dental caries, complete prevention of dental caries is still beyond reach. Several risk factors are associated with caries formation and progression. Previous studies have been conducted on dental caries and the efficiency of diagnosis using subjective and objective methodologies. Hence, this study was conducted to assess the contradictions in results of subjective and objective interpretations.

Methods : A descriptive study was carried out in the clinical setting of rural areas near Chengalpattu. Using convenience sampling, 285 samples were collected according to inclusion and exclusion criteria within the age range of 7–20 years. The subjects were selected from the Outpatient Department of Karpaga Vinayaka Institute of Dental Sciences. . American Dental Association (ADA) questionnaires were used for subjective caries risk assessment, unstimulated salivary samples were collected to measure salivary pH for objective caries risk assessment, and DMFT and def indices were measured for reference. After data collection, statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 22. Chi-square and Pearson correlation tests were performed to find the statistical differences, and a correlation was found between subjective and objective assessment results.

Results : In this study, the correlation between objective risk assessment based on salivary pH and actual caries status was slightly better (r = 0.159) than other risk assessment methods (r = 0.050). Moreover, a negative correlation was found between subjective and objective caries risk assessment (r = - 0.062).

Conclusion: The study findings show a negative correlation between subjective and objective assessment. Objective caries risk assessment using salivary pH was positively correlated with actual caries status.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1. Pitts N, Amaechi B, Niederman R, Acevedo AM, Vianna R,
Ganss C, et al. Global oral health inequalities: dental caries
task group--research agenda. Adv Dent Res. 2011;23(2):211-
20. doi: 10.1177/0022034511402016.
2. Janakiram C, Antony B, Joseph J, Ramanarayanan V.
Prevalence of dental caries in India among the WHO index
age groups: a meta-analysis. J Clin Diagn Res. 2018;12(8):ZE8-
13. doi: 10.7860/jcdr/2018/32669.11956.
3. Hooley M, Skouteris H, Boganin C, Satur J, Kilpatrick N. Body
mass index and dental caries in children and adolescents: a
systematic review of literature published 2004 to 2011. Syst
Rev. 2012;1:57. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-57.
4. Bernabé E, Vehkalahti MM, Sheiham A, Lundqvist A, Suominen
AL. The shape of the dose-response relationship between
sugars and caries in adults. J Dent Res. 2016;95(2):167-72.
doi: 10.1177/0022034515616572.
5. Tellez M, Gomez J, Pretty I, Ellwood R, Ismail AI. Evidence
on existing caries risk assessment systems: are they
predictive of future caries? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol.
2013;41(1):67-78. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12003.
6. National Institutes of Health (US). Diagnosis and management
of dental caries throughout life. NIH Consens Statement.
2001;18(1):1-23.
7. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on
caries-risk assessment and management for infants, children,
and adolescents. Reference Manual. 2011;37(6):15-6.
8. Featherstone JD, Crystal YO, Alston P, Chaffee BW,
Doméjean S, Rechmann P, et al. A comparison of four caries
risk assessment methods. Front Oral Health. 2021;2:656558.
doi: 10.3389/froh.2021.656558.
9. Cunha-Cruz J, Scott J, Rothen M, Mancl L, Lawhorn T,
Brossel K, et al. Salivary characteristics and dental caries:
evidence from general dental practices. J Am Dent Assoc.
2013;144(5):e31-40. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0159.
10. Mejàre I, Axelsson S, Dahlén G, Espelid I, Norlund A,
Tranæus S, et al. Caries risk assessment. A systematic
review. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(2):81-91. doi:
10.3109/00016357.2013.822548.
11. Schipper R, Loof A, de Groot J, Harthoorn L, van Heerde W,
Dransfield E. Salivary protein/peptide profiling with SELDITOF-MS. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007;1098:498-503. doi:
10.1196/annals.1384.010.
12. Pettersen PE, Baez RJ. Oral Health Surveys: Basic Methods.
5th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2013.
13. American Dental Association (ADA). Caries Risk Assessment
Form (Age 0-6). ADA; 2011. Available from: https://www.
ada.org/~/media/ADA/Science%20and%Research/Files/
topic_caries_over6.pdf?laen.
14. Riley JL 3rd, Gordan VV, Ajmo CT, Bockman H, Jackson
MB, Gilbert GH. Dentists’ use of caries risk assessment and
individualized caries prevention for their adult patients:
findings from The Dental Practice-Based Research Network.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2011;39(6):564-73. doi:
10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00626.x.
15. Mariri BP, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Bergus GR, Marshall TA,
Broffitt B. Medically administered antibiotics, dietary habits,
fluoride intake and dental caries experience in the primary
dentition. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2003;31(1):40-
51. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2003.00019.x.
16. Goyal D, Kaur H, Jawanda MK, Verma S, Parhar S. Salivary
pH and dental caries in diabetes mellitus. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Pathol. 2012;3(4):13-6.
17. Ciglar I, Sutalo J, Sjaljac-Staudt G, Bozikov J. [Saliva as a risk
factor for caries in diabetic patients]. Acta Stomatol Croat.
1991;25(3):143-9. [Croatian].
18. Rai K, Hegde AM, Kamath A, Shetty S. Dental caries
and salivary alterations in type I diabetes. J Clin
Pediatr Dent. 2011;36(2):181-4. doi: 10.17796/
jcpd.36.2.x436ln878221g364.
19. Sharma J, Gupta M, Pandit IK, Gugnani N, Mehta LK.
Comparative evaluation of the predictive value of cariogram
and informal caries risk assessment among school-going
children in the age group of 8-9 years of Yamuna Nagar District,
Haryana. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2020;38(3):266-273.
doi:10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_237_19.
20. Kahneman D, Krueger AB. Developments in the measurement
of subjective well-being. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20(1):3-24.
doi: 10.1257/089533006776526030.
Journal of Oral Health and Oral Epidemiology
Volume 13, Issue 2
July 2024
Pages 67-71

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 August 2023
  • Revise Date: 30 May 2024
  • Accept Date: 30 October 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics