Risco a cárie em crianças e adolescentes: Comparação entre o software Cariograma® e um formulário impresso baseado no Cariograma®

• Ano de defesa: 2019
• Autor(a) principal: Calazans, Thais Apolinário
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Cruzeiro do Sul; Brasil; Campus Liberdade; Mestrado em Odontologia; Cruzeiro do Sul
• Palavras-chave em Português: Cárie dentaria; Software Cariograma; Formulário; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/handle/123456789/344

The objective of the present study was to compare the use of the Cariogram® software and the Cariogram®-based Formulary in the evaluation of caries risk in Brazilian children and adolescents, considering the presence of initial, moderate and severe carious lesions in the assessment of caries experience. A total of 153 participants, both genders, aged 3 to 14 years old, who sought care in the Cruzeiro do Sul University clinic were examined. A calibrated examiner underwent a clinical examination with the International Caries Detection and Assessment System [ICDAS] and applied the Visible Plate Index (IPV) to all participants. To evaluate the caries experience (CS), three diagnostic thresholds were considered: (A) ICDAS scores 1 to 6; (B) scores 3 to 6 (B); (C) scores 5 and 6 (C). To classify the EC of each patient, the "normal for age" value was defined based on the prevalence of caries found in the sample according to thresholds A, B and C. A questionnaire assessed the presence of systemic diseases, drug use, diet and use of fluoride, always considering salivary flow as normal. The analyzes were done for deciduous dentition (DD), mixed (DM) and permanent (DP) or considering the whole sample (TT). For TT, EC was higher when considering threshold A (CPO-S / ceo-s mean = 18.12 ± 14.85), followed by threshold B (CPO-S / ceo-s mean = 8.45 ± 9.60), and C (mean CPO-S / γ-s = 6.65  ± 8.74). A significant difference was observed between the Cariogram® and Formulary (p <0.05), with a predominance of patients classified as low risk according to the Cariogram® and classified as moderate risk according to the Form, regardless of the threshold considered. In general, for all dentitions and thresholds, when the Cariogram classifies some participants as high risk, the form classifies them as moderate risk. Many participants classified as low risk for caries using Cariogram® were classified as moderate risk by using the form. In general, the intermediate risk classification by Cariogram® and moderated by the use of the form were similar.We conclude that the use of the Cariogram® and the Form are similar in the evaluation of intermediate or moderate risk patients. The detection of early, moderate or severe caries lesions in the CE evaluations does not influence the assessment of caries risk made by Cariogram® software or Cariogram®-based Formulary.