Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

A comparison of S. mutans clinical assessment methods.

Authors: S J, Weinberger; G Z, Wright;

A comparison of S. mutans clinical assessment methods.

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the tongue blade/Rodac plate assessment method, the Cariescreen (APO Diagnostics Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada) method, and a modified Cariescreen method for S. mutans assessment. Ninety-one triple tests were done on 23 children 1 to 4 years of age, and the S. mutans counts were compared. When all 91 tests were compared, there was agreement 86.3% of the time between the tongue blade/Rodac plate assessment method and the modified Cariescreen method. When the Cariescreen method was compared to the tongue blade/Rodac (Becton Dickins Labware, New Jersey) plate technique, there was agreement 72.2% of the time. Agreement tended to be at the low and high infection levels. When the Cariescreen and modified Cariescreen methods were compared with the tongue blade/Rodac method, most discrepancies were in the moderate range of S. mutans counts. Averages and standard deviations were 80.1 vs 32.1 for the modified Cariescreen method, and 86.9 vs 90.2 for the tongue blade/Rodac method. The linear product moment correlation coefficient was +.69. Overall, the modified Cariescreen method compared more favorably to the tongue blade/Rodac plate assessment than the Cariescreen method did.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Streptococcus mutans, Child, Preschool, Colony Count, Microbial, Dental Caries Activity Tests, Humans, Infant, Saliva

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!