RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the difference between ICCMS and CAMBRA models on treatment plan of young adults. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A total of 104 young adult patients were randomly divided into two groups, either ICCMS or CAMBRA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were examined according to the criteria of the ICDAS-II and caries risk was analyzed according to CAMBRA and divided into two equal groups according to treatment protocol. Caries incidence was assessed according to ICDAS-II criteria after 6 and 12 months. Statistical analysis used Chi-square test. A value of P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Relative risk (RR) was used to determine the clinical significance. RESULTS: The current study has revealed no statistically significant difference between both caries risk assessment models tested at baseline (P = 0.317), 6 months (P = 0.164) and 1 year (P = 0.287). Intra-group assessment of CAMBRA group showed a statistically significant difference in ICDAS scores (P = 0.002) after 12 months in high- and moderate-risk groups while low-risk group did not show statistically significant difference in ICDAS scores between different follow-up periods (P = 0.593) and (P = 1.000), respectively. ICCMS groups did not show statistically significant differences in any group along follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: ICCMS and CAMBRA were equivalent in preventing new decay. The ICCMS treatment plan is a safe approach and its preventive products are available over the counter. However, it is more complicated than CAMBRA. While CAMBRA is simpler, it is less comprehensive, some of its products are not available over the counter worldwide (e.g. Duraphat 5000 ppm) and some of them may be accompanied by several side effects (e.g. chlorhexidine mouthwash), which may weaken its management protocol.
