# Comparative Study of Methods for Caries Risk Evaluation: CAMBRA, the Cariogram, and Caries Risk Semaphore

## TL;DR

This study compares three caries risk assessment methods and finds significant differences in their results, suggesting the need for further research to determine the most effective method.

## Contribution

The study evaluates the diagnostic agreement between CAMBRA, Cariogram, and Caries Risk Semaphore for caries risk assessment.

## Key findings

- CRS classified 48% of patients as high risk, 14% as moderate, and 38% as low risk.
- The highest agreement was between CRS and CAMBRA, with Kappa values of 0.36 overall and 0.46 for low risk.
- Results show significant heterogeneity, indicating the need for further study on predictive capacity of these methods.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Caries risk assessment is essential for the management of dental caries. There are different assessment methods with the most commonly used being CAMBRA, the Cariogram, and Caries Risk Semaphore (CRS). The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic agreement between the three different caries risk assessment methods mentioned above. Methods: This study was conducted in the Dental Clinic of the University of Valencia by Preventive and Community Dentistry II students on patients examined during clinical practices (n = 672). Patients were evaluated to determine their caries risk using the three methods named above. A descriptive analysis of the sample was performed, and diagnostic agreement was assessed using the Kappa coefficient. Results: According to CRS, 321 patients (48%) showed high risk, 96 patients (14%) moderate risk, and 255 (38%) low risk. The highest diagnostic agreement was found between CRS and CAMBRA, with an unweighted Kappa of 0.36. Regarding risk severity assessments, the highest Kappa was also observed between CRS and CAMBRA, with a Kappa of 0.46 for low risk, 0.14 for moderate risk, and 0.40 for high risk. Conclusions: There is an important heterogeneity in the obtained results. This highlights the need to further study different caries risk assessment methods and determine their predictive capacity to choose the one that yields the best outcome.