Benjamin W Chaffee1, John D B Featherstone2, Ling Zhan3. 1. Assistant professor, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, at University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif., USA;, Email: benjamin.chaffee@ucsf.edu. 2. Professor and Dean, at University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif., USA. 3. Associate professor, Department of Orofacial Sciences, at University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif., USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine cumulative dental treatment experience in a retrospective clinical cohort, according to baseline caries risk assessment (CRA) information. METHODS: Evaluated were electronic records from a university pediatric dental clinic (2009 to 2014) of new, six- to 72- month-old patients who were not treated under sedation or general anesthesia (<small>N</small> equals 750). The mean number of teeth restored or extracted (two-year total and omitting the first 190 days post-baseline to discount initial treatment needs) was compared by baseline CRA category and CRA items (caries risk indicators, protective items, and clinical disease indicators). RESULTS: The CRA category was associated with mean treated teeth over two years (low equals 0.53, moderate equals 1.02, high/extreme equals 4.47) and post 190 days (low equals 0.51, moderate equals 0.89, high/extreme equals 2.11). Any treatment probability was greatest for high/extreme-risk children but not statistically significantly different between low- and moderate-risk. Age-standardized means were greater for all individual baseline clinical indicators and most risk indicators, but lower for most protective items (not statistically significantly for all items). Clinical indicators were the strongest outcome correlates. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, baseline risk information was associated with clinical outcomes. CRA can help identify patients needing more intensive caries prevention.
PURPOSE: To determine cumulative dental treatment experience in a retrospective clinical cohort, according to baseline caries risk assessment (CRA) information. METHODS: Evaluated were electronic records from a university pediatric dental clinic (2009 to 2014) of new, six- to 72- month-old patients who were not treated under sedation or general anesthesia (<small>N</small> equals 750). The mean number of teeth restored or extracted (two-year total and omitting the first 190 days post-baseline to discount initial treatment needs) was compared by baseline CRA category and CRA items (caries risk indicators, protective items, and clinical disease indicators). RESULTS: The CRA category was associated with mean treated teeth over two years (low equals 0.53, moderate equals 1.02, high/extreme equals 4.47) and post 190 days (low equals 0.51, moderate equals 0.89, high/extreme equals 2.11). Any treatment probability was greatest for high/extreme-risk children but not statistically significantly different between low- and moderate-risk. Age-standardized means were greater for all individual baseline clinical indicators and most risk indicators, but lower for most protective items (not statistically significantly for all items). Clinical indicators were the strongest outcome correlates. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, baseline risk information was associated with clinical outcomes. CRA can help identify patients needing more intensive caries prevention.
Authors: Christie L Custodio-Lumsden; Randi L Wolf; Isobel R Contento; Charles E Basch; Patricia A Zybert; Pamela A Koch; Burton L Edelstein Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 1.821
Authors: John D B Featherstone; Yasmi O Crystal; Pamela Alston; Benjamin W Chaffee; Sophie Doméjean; Peter Rechmann; Ling Zhan; Francisco Ramos-Gomez Journal: Front Oral Health Date: 2021-04-28
Authors: John D B Featherstone; Yasmi O Crystal; Pamela Alston; Benjamin W Chaffee; Sophie Doméjean; Peter Rechmann; Ling Zhan; Francisco Ramos-Gomez Journal: Front Oral Health Date: 2021-04-27