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

Abstract

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.