2021
DOI: 10.3389/froh.2021.657518
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evidence-Based Caries Management for All Ages-Practical Guidelines

Abstract: Introduction: The purpose of the present paper is to provide step-by-step guidelines for dental healthcare providers to manage dental caries based upon caries risk assessment (CRA) for ages 0–6 years and 6 years through adult. The manuscript reviews and updates the CAMBRA (caries management by risk assessment) system which includes CRA and caries management recommendations that are guided by the assessed risk level.Caries Risk Assessment: CAMBRA CRA tools (CRAs) have been evaluated in several clinical outcomes… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
47
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
0
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The included articles were published in 2015 [ 7 ], 2018 [ 23 ], and 2021 [ 24 ]. No authors used the 2019/2021 update of the CAMBRA protocol [ 16 , 17 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The included articles were published in 2015 [ 7 ], 2018 [ 23 ], and 2021 [ 24 ]. No authors used the 2019/2021 update of the CAMBRA protocol [ 16 , 17 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, Cheng et al [ 7 ] and Kriegler et al [ 24 ] did not mention the use of xylitol candies despite the fact that the original CAMBRA protocol indicated these for patients at moderate, high, and extreme risk for dental caries. Although the authors did not use the 2019/2021 CAMBRA protocol [ 16 , 17 ], in this update, xylitol is no longer listed as a protective factor as the evidence for its use is limited.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In the rst round of scoring, each expert ranked scenarios individually, which was further discussed and rescored for the second round in a panel meeting. The median score was calculated for each scenario, and its appropriateness was determined as inappropriate (1-3), uncertain (4-6), or appropriate (7)(8)(9). In addition, agreement was assessed according to the RAM model based on the panel size (additional le 1) (33).…”
Section: F Decision Makingmentioning
confidence: 99%