Cargando…

Caries risk assessment using different Cariogram models. A comparative study about concordance in different populations—Adults and children

This methodological survey aimed to verify whether there is concordance among several Cariogram different risk models at different thresholds, comparing both children and adult populations and how each risk/protective factor weight on the overall caries risk profile. Three groups’ data (two in child...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cagetti, Maria Grazia, Bontà, Giuliana, Lara, Juan Sebastian, Campus, Guglielmo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9231745/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35749436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264945
_version_ 1784735413298003968
author Cagetti, Maria Grazia
Bontà, Giuliana
Lara, Juan Sebastian
Campus, Guglielmo
author_facet Cagetti, Maria Grazia
Bontà, Giuliana
Lara, Juan Sebastian
Campus, Guglielmo
author_sort Cagetti, Maria Grazia
collection PubMed
description This methodological survey aimed to verify whether there is concordance among several Cariogram different risk models at different thresholds, comparing both children and adult populations and how each risk/protective factor weight on the overall caries risk profile. Three groups’ data (two in children and one in adults) were obtained from previous studies, while a fourth, in young adults, was ad hoc enrolled. Different caries risk levels were assessed: a) three risk categories with two different thresholds as: “low risk”  =  61–100% or 81–100% chance to avoid caries, “moderate risk”  =  41–60% or 21–80% and “high risk”  =  0–40% or 0–20%, named model 1 and 2; b) four risk categories with two different thresholds as: “low risk”  =  61–100% or 76–100%, “moderate/low risk” = 41–60% or 51–75%; “moderate/high risk” = 21–40% or 26–50% and “high risk” = 0–20% or 0–25%, model 3 and 4; c) five risk categories as: “very low risk”  =  81–100%; “low risk”  =  61–80% “moderate risk” = 41–60%; “high risk” = 21–40% and “very high risk” = 0–20%, model 5. Concordance of the different Cariogram risk categories among the four groups was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. The weight of the association between all Cariogram models toward the Cariogram risk variables was evaluated by ordinal logistic regression models. Considering Cariogram model 1 and 2, Cohen’s Kappa values ranged from 0.40 (SE = 0.07) for the young adult group to 0.71 (SE = 0.05) for the adult one. Cohen’s Kappa values ranged from 0.14 (SE = 0.03 p<0.01) for the adult group to 0.62 (SE = 0.02) for the two groups of children in models 3 and 4. Statistically significant associations were found for all Cariogram risk variables excepting Fluoride program in models 4 and 5 and the overall risk on children’s samples. Caries experience showed a quite variable weight in the different models in both adult groups. In the regression analyses, adult groups’ convergence was not always achievable since variations in associations between caries risk and different risk variables were narrower compared to other samples. Significant differences in caries risk stratification using different thresholds stands out from data analysis; consequently, risk assessments need to be carefully considered due to the risk of misleadingly choosing preventive and research actions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9231745
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92317452022-06-25 Caries risk assessment using different Cariogram models. A comparative study about concordance in different populations—Adults and children Cagetti, Maria Grazia Bontà, Giuliana Lara, Juan Sebastian Campus, Guglielmo PLoS One Research Article This methodological survey aimed to verify whether there is concordance among several Cariogram different risk models at different thresholds, comparing both children and adult populations and how each risk/protective factor weight on the overall caries risk profile. Three groups’ data (two in children and one in adults) were obtained from previous studies, while a fourth, in young adults, was ad hoc enrolled. Different caries risk levels were assessed: a) three risk categories with two different thresholds as: “low risk”  =  61–100% or 81–100% chance to avoid caries, “moderate risk”  =  41–60% or 21–80% and “high risk”  =  0–40% or 0–20%, named model 1 and 2; b) four risk categories with two different thresholds as: “low risk”  =  61–100% or 76–100%, “moderate/low risk” = 41–60% or 51–75%; “moderate/high risk” = 21–40% or 26–50% and “high risk” = 0–20% or 0–25%, model 3 and 4; c) five risk categories as: “very low risk”  =  81–100%; “low risk”  =  61–80% “moderate risk” = 41–60%; “high risk” = 21–40% and “very high risk” = 0–20%, model 5. Concordance of the different Cariogram risk categories among the four groups was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. The weight of the association between all Cariogram models toward the Cariogram risk variables was evaluated by ordinal logistic regression models. Considering Cariogram model 1 and 2, Cohen’s Kappa values ranged from 0.40 (SE = 0.07) for the young adult group to 0.71 (SE = 0.05) for the adult one. Cohen’s Kappa values ranged from 0.14 (SE = 0.03 p<0.01) for the adult group to 0.62 (SE = 0.02) for the two groups of children in models 3 and 4. Statistically significant associations were found for all Cariogram risk variables excepting Fluoride program in models 4 and 5 and the overall risk on children’s samples. Caries experience showed a quite variable weight in the different models in both adult groups. In the regression analyses, adult groups’ convergence was not always achievable since variations in associations between caries risk and different risk variables were narrower compared to other samples. Significant differences in caries risk stratification using different thresholds stands out from data analysis; consequently, risk assessments need to be carefully considered due to the risk of misleadingly choosing preventive and research actions. Public Library of Science 2022-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9231745/ /pubmed/35749436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264945 Text en © 2022 Cagetti et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Cagetti, Maria Grazia
Bontà, Giuliana
Lara, Juan Sebastian
Campus, Guglielmo
Caries risk assessment using different Cariogram models. A comparative study about concordance in different populations—Adults and children
title Caries risk assessment using different Cariogram models. A comparative study about concordance in different populations—Adults and children
title_full Caries risk assessment using different Cariogram models. A comparative study about concordance in different populations—Adults and children
title_fullStr Caries risk assessment using different Cariogram models. A comparative study about concordance in different populations—Adults and children
title_full_unstemmed Caries risk assessment using different Cariogram models. A comparative study about concordance in different populations—Adults and children
title_short Caries risk assessment using different Cariogram models. A comparative study about concordance in different populations—Adults and children
title_sort caries risk assessment using different cariogram models. a comparative study about concordance in different populations—adults and children
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9231745/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35749436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264945
work_keys_str_mv AT cagettimariagrazia cariesriskassessmentusingdifferentcariogrammodelsacomparativestudyaboutconcordanceindifferentpopulationsadultsandchildren
AT bontagiuliana cariesriskassessmentusingdifferentcariogrammodelsacomparativestudyaboutconcordanceindifferentpopulationsadultsandchildren
AT larajuansebastian cariesriskassessmentusingdifferentcariogrammodelsacomparativestudyaboutconcordanceindifferentpopulationsadultsandchildren
AT campusguglielmo cariesriskassessmentusingdifferentcariogrammodelsacomparativestudyaboutconcordanceindifferentpopulationsadultsandchildren