AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe difference between the caries risk groups after two years reveals that the efficiency of Cariogram is controversial in term of caries risk.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
In this study, the efficacy of Cariogram, to assess or predict caries risk, was evaluated.76 female, 58 male children aged between 10-11 years were included in the study. For each child, pre-examination interview questions, oral examination records and saliva tests were completed. The factors related to caries were included in the scores in the Cariogram. Scores were entered into the computer program and the percentage of each child was defined as the chance to prevent caries. All children were classified by caries risk group. 73 female and 52 male children were re-evaluated two years after the start date and DMFT index was obtained for each child. The DMFT index was compared to the percentile of caries-protection chances determined by Cariogram. Descriptive statistics were calculated. The DMFT index is used to mark the 'high risk' and 'standard set' sections in the three risk groups which are determined as 1-25%, 26-75% and 76+% by the current account and in the sub-headings of the 'Country/region' section in the Cariogram and the difference in DMFT index in the caries risk groups determined by the Cariograms was found to be different when the 'high risk' and 'standard set' sections were marked, whereas this difference was not statistically significant (p> 0.05) none of the related factors were associated with an increase in DMFT index (p> 0.05). The difference between the caries risk groups after two years reveals that the efficiency of Cariogram is controversial in term of caries risk.