Abstract：
BACKGROUND: One of the essential components for successful caries management is caries risk assessment (CRA). Among CRA tools (CRATs) published in the literature: Caries management by risk assessment (CAMBRA) 123 and American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) CRATs are specifically designed for infants and toddlers.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare readily available internationally accepted CRAT for infants and toddlers and check the usability of these tools in assigning caries risk among the Indian population.
METHODS: The study was conducted at Baby Oral Health Promotion Clinic, Department of Pediatrics, Tertiary Care Hospital using a cross-sectional study design.
METHODS: Data were collected using CAMBRA 123 and AAPD CRATs from 379 children aged 0-6 years. The caries risk of the children was recorded with each CRAT and a comparison was made between the two tools used.
METHODS: The percentage of agreement and Cohen\'s kappa coefficient were used to know the agreement between the CAMBRA 123 and AAPD CRATs using the SPSS statistical tool. The significance level was set at 5% (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: For children aged <2 years, the study showed slight agreement between the CAMBRA 123 and AAPD, whereas, for children more than 2 years, there was a fair agreement between the two methods which was statistically significant. This indicates that the agreement between the two methods is still not perfectly established, and AAPD CRA assigns a higher risk category than CAMBRA 123.
CONCLUSIONS: CAMBRA 123 is a promising user-friendly quantitative method for CRA in clinical practice. Since there is ambiguity in assessing the caries risk in children <2 years, there is a need to establish a CRAT that can be used exclusively for children below 2 years.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare readily available internationally accepted CRAT for infants and toddlers and check the usability of these tools in assigning caries risk among the Indian population.
METHODS: The study was conducted at Baby Oral Health Promotion Clinic, Department of Pediatrics, Tertiary Care Hospital using a cross-sectional study design.
METHODS: Data were collected using CAMBRA 123 and AAPD CRATs from 379 children aged 0-6 years. The caries risk of the children was recorded with each CRAT and a comparison was made between the two tools used.
METHODS: The percentage of agreement and Cohen\'s kappa coefficient were used to know the agreement between the CAMBRA 123 and AAPD CRATs using the SPSS statistical tool. The significance level was set at 5% (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: For children aged <2 years, the study showed slight agreement between the CAMBRA 123 and AAPD, whereas, for children more than 2 years, there was a fair agreement between the two methods which was statistically significant. This indicates that the agreement between the two methods is still not perfectly established, and AAPD CRA assigns a higher risk category than CAMBRA 123.
CONCLUSIONS: CAMBRA 123 is a promising user-friendly quantitative method for CRA in clinical practice. Since there is ambiguity in assessing the caries risk in children <2 years, there is a need to establish a CRAT that can be used exclusively for children below 2 years.
摘要：
背景：成功的龋齿管理的重要组成部分之一是龋齿风险评估（CRA）。在文献中发表的CRA工具（CRAT）中：通过风险评估（CAMBRA）123和美国儿科牙科学会（AAPD）CRAT是专门为婴儿和幼儿设计的。
目的：这项研究的目的是比较容易获得的国际公认的婴儿和幼儿CRAT，并检查这些工具在印度人群中分配龋齿风险的可用性。
方法：这项研究是在婴儿口腔健康促进诊所进行的，儿科，三级护理医院采用横断面研究设计。
方法：使用CAMBRA123和AAPDCRAT收集来自379名0-6岁儿童的数据。每个CRAT记录儿童的龋齿风险，并在使用的两种工具之间进行比较。
方法：使用SPSS统计工具，使用一致性百分比和Cohen的kappa系数来了解CAMBRA123和AAPDCRAT之间的一致性。显著性水平设定为5%(α=0.05)。
结果：对于<2岁的儿童，这项研究表明，CAMBRA123和AAPD之间略有一致性，然而,对于2岁以上的儿童，两种方法之间有一个公平的协议，具有统计学意义。这表明两种方法之间的协议仍然没有完全建立，和AAPDCRA分配比CAMBRA123更高的风险类别。
结论：CAMBRA123是临床实践中CRA的一种有前途的用户友好的定量方法。由于评估<2岁儿童的龋齿风险存在歧义，有必要建立一种可专门用于2岁以下儿童的CRAT。
目的：这项研究的目的是比较容易获得的国际公认的婴儿和幼儿CRAT，并检查这些工具在印度人群中分配龋齿风险的可用性。
方法：这项研究是在婴儿口腔健康促进诊所进行的，儿科，三级护理医院采用横断面研究设计。
方法：使用CAMBRA123和AAPDCRAT收集来自379名0-6岁儿童的数据。每个CRAT记录儿童的龋齿风险，并在使用的两种工具之间进行比较。
方法：使用SPSS统计工具，使用一致性百分比和Cohen的kappa系数来了解CAMBRA123和AAPDCRAT之间的一致性。显著性水平设定为5%(α=0.05)。
结果：对于<2岁的儿童，这项研究表明，CAMBRA123和AAPD之间略有一致性，然而,对于2岁以上的儿童，两种方法之间有一个公平的协议，具有统计学意义。这表明两种方法之间的协议仍然没有完全建立，和AAPDCRA分配比CAMBRA123更高的风险类别。
结论：CAMBRA123是临床实践中CRA的一种有前途的用户友好的定量方法。由于评估<2岁儿童的龋齿风险存在歧义，有必要建立一种可专门用于2岁以下儿童的CRAT。
