Non-Cochrane · prognostic · PM40044209

Risk prediction models for dental caries in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Xijia, Zhang Peng, Lu Huifei, et al. · BMJ open · 2025 · PubMed · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088253

Oral HealthDental cariesAMSTAR 2: not applicable
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
16
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 7 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationChildren and adolescents aged 1-18 years11 studies (n=11); children/adolescents aged 1-18 years; primary dentition (n=5), young permanent teeth (n=5), both (n=1); China (n=5), Korea (n=2), Brazil (n=2), Singapore (n=1), Sri Lanka (n=1); sample sizes 200-4573
InterventionDeveloped/published simplified caries prediction models with >=2 predictors (excluding oral-microbiome/microbiological models)25 simplified caries prediction models; methods: logistic regression (n=10), random forest (n=4), decision tree (n=3), XGBoost (n=3), SVM (n=1), MLP neural network (n=1), AdaBoost (n=1), kNN (n=1); candidate predictors 9-39
ComparisonModels without competing models (no comparator model)No competing-model comparisons (single-model development/validation)
OutcomesPrediction of dental caries in children (simplified prediction models; discrimination and calibration)Model discrimination (AUC/C-statistic) ranged 0.566-0.931; pooled AUC of 6 models 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.84), I2=97.3%; calibration assessed variously (calibration curves, Hosmer-Lemeshow, Brier score, DCA); all studies high risk of bias (PROBAST)
Study designsHome/community preventive oral healthcare; detection of undiagnosed caries in asymptomatic childrenSchool, community and clinical/medical settings (varied across studies)
TimingFor asymptomatic children; rapid detection of undiagnosed caries (prediction horizon)Cohort follow-up 3 months to 10 years; primary and young permanent dentition

Search date: 18 January 2024. Databases: PubMed; Web of Science; Cochrane Library; CINAHL; Embase; China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI); Wanfang Database; China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP); SinoMed

Questions and results

Simple childhood caries prediction models with at least two predictors vs No competing model

Population: Children and adolescents (≤18 years)
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve)
Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported
The Duan (2021) model had an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.72).
Source: Figure 2 · same question in other reviews
AUC 0.71 [0.69, 0.72]1 studyUngraded
Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve)
Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported
The Luo (2021) model had an AUC of 0.77 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.77).
Source: Figure 2 · same question in other reviews
AUC 0.766 [0.761, 0.771]1 studyUngraded
Model discrimination (area under the ROC curve, AUC)
Prediction of future/undiagnosed caries; cohort follow-up 3 months-10 years · Overall (6 validated models pooled)
Population: Children and adolescents aged 1-18 years
Simplified childhood caries prediction models show moderate pooled discrimination (AUC 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.84) but with very high heterogeneity (I2=97.3%) and all models at high risk of bias (PROBAST); ungraded.
Source: Figure 2 (forest plot, overall diamond); Results 'Statistical methods of models'; Abstract; Conclusion · same question in other reviews
AUC 0.79 [0.73, 0.84]6 studiesUngraded
Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve)
Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported · Yaxuan (2023)
The Liu (2023) model had an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97).
Source: Figure 2 · same question in other reviews
AUC 0.931 [0.876, 0.967]1 studyUngraded
Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve)
Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported · Wickramasinghe (2022)
The Danushi (2022) model had an AUC of 0.59 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.67).
Source: Figure 2 · same question in other reviews
AUC 0.592 [0.514, 0.671]1 studyUngraded
Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve)
Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported
The Qu (2022) model had an AUC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.94).
Source: Figure 2 · same question in other reviews
AUC 0.91 [0.87, 0.94]1 studyUngraded
Dental caries discrimination (area under the curve)
Validation assessment; prediction horizon not reported · Kim (2018)
The Kim (2018) model had an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.88).
Source: Figure 2 · same question in other reviews
AUC 0.782 [0.681, 0.884]1 studyUngraded

Included primary studies 16

Open as a trial list
StudyAlso included byOutcomes it informs hereTrial PICOResults
Kalhan (2020)
Caries Risk Prediction Models in a Medical Health Care Setting.
PMID:32311276
1 other reviewnot statednot extracted yetnot extracted yet
Duan 2021
A predictive nomogram: a cross-sectional study on a simple-to-use model for screening 12-year-old children for severe caries in middle…
PMID:34544417
this review onlyDental caries discrimination (area under the curve)not extracted yetnot extracted yet
Kalhan 2020
DOI:10.1177/0022034520913032
this review onlynot statednot extracted yetnot extracted yet
Kim (2018)
Simplified Prediction Model for Accurate Assessment of Dental Caries Risk among Participants Aged 10-18 Years.
PMID:30333362
this review onlyDental caries discrimination (area under the curve)not extracted yetnot extracted yet
Kim 2018
DOI:10.1620/tjem.246.8
this review onlyDental caries discrimination (area under the curve)not extracted yetnot extracted yet
Luo 2021
Nomogram prediction of caries risk among schoolchildren age 7 years based on a cohort study in Shanghai.
PMID:34851774
this review onlyDental caries discrimination (area under the curve)not extracted yetnot extracted yet
Montenegro 2008
A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Techniques for Caries Prediction
DOI:10.1109/ictai.2008.138
this review onlynot statednot extracted yetnot extracted yet
Park 2021
Prediction Models of Early Childhood Caries Based on Machine Learning Algorithms.
PMID:34444368
this review onlynot statednot extracted yetnot extracted yet
Qu (2022)
Prediction model for early childhood caries risk based on behavioral determinants using a machine learning algorithm.
PMID:36384058
this review onlyDental caries discrimination (area under the curve)not extracted yetnot extracted yet
Qu 2022
Prediction model for early childhood caries risk based on behavioral determinants using a machine learning algorithm
DOI:10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.107221
this review onlyDental caries discrimination (area under the curve)not extracted yetnot extracted yet
Toledo Reyes (2023)
Early Childhood Predictors for Dental Caries: A Machine Learning Approach.
PMID:37246832
this review onlynot statednot extracted yetnot extracted yet
Toledo Reyes 2023
DOI:10.1177/00220345231170537
this review onlynot statednot extracted yetnot extracted yet
Wickramasinghe (2022)
Identifying high-risk children for dental caries in school settings: A simple predictive model.
PMID:38421295
this review onlynot statednot extracted yetnot extracted yet
Wickramasinghe 2022
Identifying high-risk children for dental caries in school settings: A simple predictive model
DOI:10.4038/cmj.v67i4.9744
this review onlyDental caries discrimination (area under the curve)not extracted yetnot extracted yet
Xinmiao 2023
Prediction model of dental caries in 12-year-old children in Sichuan Province based on machine learning.
PMID:38597034
this review onlynot statednot extracted yetnot extracted yet
Yaxuan 2023
25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 metabolism in a human leukemia cell line.
PMID:3102023
this review onlyDental caries discrimination (area under the curve)not extracted yetnot extracted yet

Overlap with other reviews

Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match).