Acid tolerance properties of dental biofilms in vivo

Background: The ecological plaque hypothesis explains caries development as the result of the enrichment of acid tolerant bacteria in dental biofilms in response to prolonged periods of low pH. Acid production by an acid tolerant microflora causes demineralisation of tooth enamel and thus, individuals with a greater proportion of acid tolerant bacteria would be expected to be more prone to caries development. Biofilm acid tolerance could therefore be a possible biomarker for caries prediction. However, little is known about the stability of biofilm acid tolerance over time in vivo or the distribution throughout the oral cavity. Therefore the aim of this study was to assess intra-individual differences in biofilm acid-tolerance between different tooth surfaces and inter-individual variation as well as stability of acid tolerance over time. Results: The majority of the adolescents showed low scores for biofilm acid tolerance. In 14 of 20 individuals no differences were seen between the three tooth sites examined. In the remaining six, acid-tolerance at the premolar site differed from one of the other sites. At 51 of 60 tooth sites, acid-tolerance at baseline was unchanged after 1 month. However, acid tolerance values changed over a 1-year period in 50% of the individuals. Conclusions: Biofilm acid tolerance showed short-term stability and low variation between different sites in the same individual suggesting that the acid tolerance could be a promising biological biomarker candidate for caries prediction. Further evaluation is however needed and prospective clinical trials are called for to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy

A novel classification system for assessment of approximal caries lesion progression in bitewing radiographs

OBJECTIVES: To design and pilot a novel classification system for the assessment of caries lesion progression in bitewing radiography and to report rater agreement of the system. METHODS: A classification system with drawings and text was designed to assess caries lesion progression. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies were used to study and report rater agreement. Pairs of posterior bitewing radiographs (baseline and 1-year follow-up) with different status concerning caries lesion progression were selected from files from public dental health clinics. 10 raters, 5 general dental practitioners and 5 specialists in oral and maxillofacial radiology were asked to assess the radiographs with the aid of the classification system. Seven raters repeated their assessments. Rater agreement was expressed as percentage of agreement and kappa. RESULTS: Kappa for the interrater agreement of 10 raters assessing progression was 0.61, indicating substantial agreement. Agreement was moderate for progression in the outer half of the dentine (kappa 0.55) and within enamel (kappa 0.44). Pairwise interrater agreement varied (range 69-92%; kappa 0.42-0.84). For about half of the pairs of raters, kappa was substantial (≥0.61). Intrarater agreement assessing progression was substantial (kappa 0.66-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the applicability of the proposed classification system on caries lesion progression with respect to rater agreement. This system can provide a common framework for clinical decision-making on caries interventional methods and patient visiting intervals. Scientifically, this system allows for a comparative analysis of different methods of prevention and treatment of caries as well as of different caries risk assessment methods

Threshold values affect predictive accuracy of caries risk assessment

Objective: To evaluate effects of thresholds on estimates of predictive accuracy of methods for caries risk assessment. Material and methods: Adolescents, aged 12 visiting two dental clinics, were examined by visual/tactile examination and bitewing radiography at baseline and after one year. Three methods for caries risk assessment were applied: previous caries experience, dentists’ risk assessment according to set criteria (presence or absence of caries lesion) and acid tolerance of dental biofilm. The measure for validity (the reference standard) comprised caries lesion progression at 1 year. Predictive accuracy estimates were calculated for several thresholds. Results: Accuracy estimates changed with threshold values of the methods and the reference standard. Patient spectrum differed between the clinics, which resulted in different accuracy estimates for the two samples. Generally, negative predictive values were high while positive ones were low indicating that these methods were more efficient in finding individuals who are at low risk of developing caries lesions than those with increased risk. Conclusions: As thresholds and patient spectrum affected predictive accuracy, it may be difficult to design a universal model with set thresholds for caries risk assessment. Foremost, a model should consider the level of aspiration for prediction and clinical decisions that will be made based on the risk assessment in the actual clinical setting

Diagnostic Accuracy of Different Caries Risk Assessment Methods. A Systematic Review.

To evaluate the accuracy of different methods used to identify individuals with increased risk of developing coronal dental caries

A novel classification system for assessment of approximal caries lesion progression in bitewing radiographs

OBJECTIVES: To design and pilot a novel classification system for the assessment of caries lesion progression in bitewing radiography and to report rater agreement of the system. METHODS: A classification system with drawings and text was designed to assess caries lesion progression. Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies were used to study and report rater agreement. Pairs of posterior bitewing radiographs (baseline and 1-year follow-up) with different status concerning caries lesion progression were selected from files from public dental health clinics. 10 raters, 5 general dental practitioners and 5 specialists in oral and maxillofacial radiology were asked to assess the radiographs with the aid of the classification system. Seven raters repeated their assessments. Rater agreement was expressed as percentage of agreement and kappa. RESULTS: Kappa for the interrater agreement of 10 raters assessing progression was 0.61, indicating substantial agreement. Agreement was moderate for progression in the outer half of the dentine (kappa 0.55) and within enamel (kappa 0.44). Pairwise interrater agreement varied (range 69–92%; kappa 0.42–0.84). For about half of the pairs of raters, kappa was substantial (≥0.61). Intrarater agreement assessing progression was substantial (kappa 0.66–0.82). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the applicability of the proposed classification system on caries lesion progression with respect to rater agreement. This system can provide a common framework for clinical decision-making on caries interventional methods and patient visiting intervals. Scientifically, this system allows for a comparative analysis of different methods of prevention and treatment of caries as well as of different caries risk assessment methods