Comparative effectiveness of visual/tactile and simplified screening examinations in caries risk assessment

Central to the development of a model for identifying children at high risk to caries is a clinical evaluation to assess dental status and other conditions potentially useful in caries prediction. Traditionally, this evaluation has been based on a relatively lengthy visual/tactile examination conducted by a dentist. Replacing the dentist examination with a dental auxiliary conducted screening evaluation could lead to reduced time and costs. The 4‐yr University of North Carolina Curies Risk Assessment Study involved approximately 5000 schoolchildren initially in Grades 1 and 5 living near Aiken, South Carolina, and Portland, Maine. The effectiveness of caries prediction models using visual/tactile examination data were compared with the same models using simplified screening evaluation data. Results showed sensitivity ranged from 0.57 to 0.61 for the visual/tactile and screening models by site and grade cohort. Specificity for the models ranged from 0.80 to 0.83. None of these differences in sensitivity and specificity between visual/tactile (dentist) and screening (hygienist) models was statistically significant. Findings show that for the prediction of children at high risk to dental caries the clinical evaluation may be conducted with no reduction of precision by using dental hygienist performed screening evaluations rather than dentist conducted visual/tactile examinations. While no cost data were collected, these results imply that costs to future prediction programs could be reduced by using screening evaluations.