OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the caries risk profiles obtained from the simplified Cariogram models and the conventional Cariogram model of Korean dental patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data required for a caries risk assessment with the Cariogram were collected from 80 young adult patients (mean: 23 years old). Three different simplified Cariogram models were produced with exclusion of either or both salivary secretion rate and lactobacilli count: group 1, conventional model; group 2, both salivary secretion rate and lactobacilli count excluded; group 3, salivary secretion rate excluded; group 4, lactobacilli count excluded. RESULTS: The mean chance of avoiding caries in group 1 (55.5%) was not significantly different from those in groups 2 and 3. Also four caries-related sectors of the Cariogram (diet, bacteria, susceptibility and circumstance) in group 1 were not significantly different than in groups 2 and 3. Group 4 showed significant differences from group 1 in the mean chance of avoiding caries and the diet, susceptibility and circumstance sectors (p < 0.05). Significant correlations were detected between all risk factors and their corresponding risk sectors (p < 0.05). Also there were significant correlations between each risk factor and the chance of avoiding caries, except for the amount of plaque, in groups 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The simplified Cariogram model without salivary secretion rate and lactobacilli count did not significantly change the outcome produced from the conventional model. However, single exclusion of lactobacilli count noticeably changed the caries risk profile.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the caries risk profiles obtained from the simplified Cariogram models and the conventional Cariogram model of Korean dental patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data required for a caries risk assessment with the Cariogram were collected from 80 young adult patients (mean: 23 years old). Three different simplified Cariogram models were produced with exclusion of either or both salivary secretion rate and lactobacilli count: group 1, conventional model; group 2, both salivary secretion rate and lactobacilli count excluded; group 3, salivary secretion rate excluded; group 4, lactobacilli count excluded. RESULTS: The mean chance of avoiding caries in group 1 (55.5%) was not significantly different from those in groups 2 and 3. Also four caries-related sectors of the Cariogram (diet, bacteria, susceptibility and circumstance) in group 1 were not significantly different than in groups 2 and 3. Group 4 showed significant differences from group 1 in the mean chance of avoiding caries and the diet, susceptibility and circumstance sectors (p < 0.05). Significant correlations were detected between all risk factors and their corresponding risk sectors (p < 0.05). Also there were significant correlations between each risk factor and the chance of avoiding caries, except for the amount of plaque, in groups 1, 2 and 3 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The simplified Cariogram model without salivary secretion rate and lactobacilli count did not significantly change the outcome produced from the conventional model. However, single exclusion of lactobacilli count noticeably changed the caries risk profile.