IADR Abstract Archives
Efficacy of ATP Tester for Evaluating Caries Risk Levels
Objectives: It has been claimed that ATP bioluminescence readings performed with a CariScreen Caries Susceptibility Testing Meter (Oral BioTech, Albany, OR) have a strong statistical association with bacteria/oral streptococci numbers in microbial plaque and thus they can be used potentially to differentiate between low risk (reading 0-1,500) and at risk (1,501-9.999) for caries.
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the numerical readings using an ATP meter (CariScreen) are significantly different for low, moderate and high caries risk patients in a Caries-Management-By-Risk-Assessment - Practice-Based-Research-Network (CAMBRA-PBRN) study.
Methods: A cohort of 9 dentist participants of the CAMBRA-PBRN study had recruited 286 patients into the study (IRB #10-02153). Subjects had never received a treatment according to CAMBRA rules. At baseline the caries risk assessment (CRA) was performed (extreme caries risk subjects were excluded due to ethical reasons). The validated California Dental Association CRA form was used, evaluating patients’ disease indicators, risk and protective factors. Dentists were trained and calibrated to assess caries risk and perform the CariScreen meter testing. To minimize variations in CRA, a validated, computerized CRA program (MyCAMBRA) was developed and provided to the dentists.
Results: 134 patients were assessed as having low, 14 moderate and 138 as having high caries risk. The CariScreen reading for the low caries risk group was 3,732±3,377, for the moderate 4,376±3,352 and for the high caries risk group 4,411±3,109 (Mean±Standard Deviation). The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA non-parametric test revealed no statistically significant differences between the readings for the different caries risk levels (p>0.05).
Conclusions: The CariScreen meter ATP bioluminescence readings do not differentiate amongst low, moderate and high caries risk individuals and thus cannot be used to determine the caries risk level of a patient.
The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the numerical readings using an ATP meter (CariScreen) are significantly different for low, moderate and high caries risk patients in a Caries-Management-By-Risk-Assessment - Practice-Based-Research-Network (CAMBRA-PBRN) study.
Methods: A cohort of 9 dentist participants of the CAMBRA-PBRN study had recruited 286 patients into the study (IRB #10-02153). Subjects had never received a treatment according to CAMBRA rules. At baseline the caries risk assessment (CRA) was performed (extreme caries risk subjects were excluded due to ethical reasons). The validated California Dental Association CRA form was used, evaluating patients’ disease indicators, risk and protective factors. Dentists were trained and calibrated to assess caries risk and perform the CariScreen meter testing. To minimize variations in CRA, a validated, computerized CRA program (MyCAMBRA) was developed and provided to the dentists.
Results: 134 patients were assessed as having low, 14 moderate and 138 as having high caries risk. The CariScreen reading for the low caries risk group was 3,732±3,377, for the moderate 4,376±3,352 and for the high caries risk group 4,411±3,109 (Mean±Standard Deviation). The Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA non-parametric test revealed no statistically significant differences between the readings for the different caries risk levels (p>0.05).
Conclusions: The CariScreen meter ATP bioluminescence readings do not differentiate amongst low, moderate and high caries risk individuals and thus cannot be used to determine the caries risk level of a patient.