Comparative Study of Methods for Caries Risk Evaluation: CAMBRA, the Cariogram, and Caries Risk Semaphore

Background/Objectives: Caries risk assessment is essential for the management of dental caries. There are different assessment methods with the most commonly used being CAMBRA, the Cariogram, and Caries Risk Semaphore (CRS). The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic agreement between the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Català-Benavent, I., Iranzo-Cortés, J.E., Almerich-Torres, T., Márquez-Arrico, C.F., Almerich-Silla, J.M., Montiel-Company, J.M.
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2025
País:España
Institución:Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de la Comunitat Valenciana (FISABIO)
Repositorio:r-FISABIO. Repositorio Institucional de Producción Científica
OAI Identifier:oai:dnet:r-fisabio___::085e43baae81fe996b43ca2aae22353d
Acceso en línea:https://fisabio.portalinvestigacion.com/publicaciones/20805
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-105013361248&doi=10.3390%2fjcm14155378&partnerID=40&md5=34513aea2ccc7c41df28cb75af8d2583
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:CAMBRA
Cariogram
dental caries
prevention
risk
adult
Article
descriptive research
female
high risk patient
human
intermethod comparison
low risk patient
major clinical study
male
risk assessment
Descripción
Sumario:Background/Objectives: Caries risk assessment is essential for the management of dental caries. There are different assessment methods with the most commonly used being CAMBRA, the Cariogram, and Caries Risk Semaphore (CRS). The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic agreement between the three different caries risk assessment methods mentioned above. Methods: This study was conducted in the Dental Clinic of the University of Valencia by Preventive and Community Dentistry II students on patients examined during clinical practices (n = 672). Patients were evaluated to determine their caries risk using the three methods named above. A descriptive analysis of the sample was performed, and diagnostic agreement was assessed using the Kappa coefficient. Results: According to CRS, 321 patients (48%) showed high risk, 96 patients (14%) moderate risk, and 255 (38%) low risk. The highest diagnostic agreement was found between CRS and CAMBRA, with an unweighted Kappa of 0.36. Regarding risk severity assessments, the highest Kappa was also observed between CRS and CAMBRA, with a Kappa of 0.46 for low risk, 0.14 for moderate risk, and 0.40 for high risk. Conclusions: There is an important heterogeneity in the obtained results. This highlights the need to further study different caries risk assessment methods and determine their predictive capacity to choose the one that yields the best outcome. © 2025 by the authors.