OBJECTIVE: To compare the Cariogram caries risk profiles with and without salivary buffer capacity and mutans streptococci (MS) counts in adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 90 healthy Greek adolescents who were undergoing orthodontic treatment. The Cariogram risk model was applied through a questionnaire and clinical and salivary examinations. The actual chance of avoiding new caries was calculated, and participants were categorized into three groups (0-40% = high caries risk, 41-60% = medium caries risk, and 61-100% = low caries risk) using a nine-item Cariogram or by excluding either salivary buffer capacity or MS or both. Cohen's Kappa statistical analysis was used for comparing the Cariogram outcome with and without salivary variables. The distribution of variables was compared by nonparametric marginal homogeneity tests. RESULTS: Using the Cariogram with nine variables, 62% of the patients were assigned to the high caries risk category, 13% to the medium risk category, and 24% to the low risk category. Omission of salivary buffer capacity did not alter the risk categories significantly, while more subjects were assigned to the medium risk category when MS counts were excluded. The difference between the nine-item Cariogram and the MS-reduced version, however, was not statistically significant (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: The Cariogram model may be used both with and without salivary tests for risk grouping in orthodontic practice.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the Cariogram caries risk profiles with and without salivary buffer capacity and mutans streptococci (MS) counts in adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 90 healthy Greek adolescents who were undergoing orthodontic treatment. The Cariogram risk model was applied through a questionnaire and clinical and salivary examinations. The actual chance of avoiding new caries was calculated, and participants were categorized into three groups (0-40% = high caries risk, 41-60% = medium caries risk, and 61-100% = low caries risk) using a nine-item Cariogram or by excluding either salivary buffer capacity or MS or both. Cohen's Kappa statistical analysis was used for comparing the Cariogram outcome with and without salivary variables. The distribution of variables was compared by nonparametric marginal homogeneity tests. RESULTS: Using the Cariogram with nine variables, 62% of the patients were assigned to the high caries risk category, 13% to the medium risk category, and 24% to the low risk category. Omission of salivary buffer capacity did not alter the risk categories significantly, while more subjects were assigned to the medium risk category when MS counts were excluded. The difference between the nine-item Cariogram and the MS-reduced version, however, was not statistically significant (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: The Cariogram model may be used both with and without salivary tests for risk grouping in orthodontic practice.