IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i21p4120-d280420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of ICDAS, CAST, Nyvad’s Criteria, and WHO-DMFT for Caries Detection in a Sample of Italian Schoolchildren

Author

Listed:
  • Guglielmo Campus

    (Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
    Department of Surgery, Microsurgery and Medicine Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Viale San Pietro, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

  • Fabio Cocco

    (Department of Surgery, Microsurgery and Medicine Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Viale San Pietro, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

  • Livia Ottolenghi

    (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Roma, Italy)

  • Maria Grazia Cagetti

    (Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Science, University of Milan, Via Beldiletto 1, 20142 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Caries measurement methods vary considerably in terms of the stages of lesion considered making the comparison problematic among different surveys. In this cross-sectional study, four caries measurement methods, the WHO-DMFT, the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS), the Caries Assessment Spectrum and Treatment (CAST), and the Nyvad Criteria were tested in a sample of children. Five-hundred 12-year old children (236 males and 264 females) were examined four times by four calibrated examiners. The calibration process showed that Cohen’s Kappa exceeded the criterion of K = 0.75 and K = 0.80 for inter/intra-examiner agreement, respectively. In the survey, the total number of misclassification errors for the four methods amounted to 312 observations (67.94% regarding enamel lesions). The greatest difference among methods was shown by number of sound teeth ( p < 0.01): WHO-DMFT n = 9505, 74.14%; ICDAS n = 2628, 20.49%; CAST n = 5053, 39.41%; and Nyvad Criteria n = 4117, 32.11%. At the level of dentinal Distinct/Active Cavity lesions, no statistically significant difference was observed ( p = 0.40) between ICDAS ( n = 1373, 10.71%), CAST ( n = 1371, 0.69%), and Nyvad Criteria ( n = 1720, 13.41%). In the severe caries levels, all methods were partially in agreement, while no accordance was found for the initial (enamel) lesions. A common language in caries detection is critical when different studies are compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Guglielmo Campus & Fabio Cocco & Livia Ottolenghi & Maria Grazia Cagetti, 2019. "Comparison of ICDAS, CAST, Nyvad’s Criteria, and WHO-DMFT for Caries Detection in a Sample of Italian Schoolchildren," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:21:p:4120-:d:280420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4120/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/21/4120/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:21:p:4120-:d:280420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.