Assessment of Implementation of a

CAMBRA-Based Program in a Dental School

Environment
Sorin T. Teich, D.M.D., M.B.A.; Catherine Demko, Ph.D.; Wisam Al-Rawi, D.M.D.;
Tom Gutberg, B.Sc.
Abstract: Caries development is determined by a balance of protective and pathological factors, so the clinician should be able to
identify and document those factors, understand their relative weight in disease development or reversal, and make recommendations to patients that will lead to risk reduction. The caries management by risk assessment (CAMBRA) protocol frames these
factors into an easy-to-follow template that also guides the clinician in making recommendations. The purposes of this study
were to examine implementation of the CAMBRA-based risk assessment program in a predoctoral clinic at one dental school,
assess the accuracy of caries risk evaluation by the students, and evaluate the utilization of professionally applied fluoride varnish
in a moderate- and high-risk patient cohort. After dental clinic patients were screened for previous caries risk status, sixty-eight
moderate- or high-risk patients were invited to participate in the study. At the study visit that included four bite-wing radiographs,
a new caries risk assessment (CRA) form was completed. Our results showed that students underestimated the risk in 25 percent
of the cases; the underestimation occurred especially when visible cavitation or caries into dentin by radiograph was the only
risk factor or when caries were not identified at the initial visit when the CRA form was completed for the first time despite the
presence of other high-risk factors. Students also underestimated both risk and protective factors at the initial evaluation visit
compared with the study visit. The results show that students were not rigorous enough in documenting these factors and determining the patients risk. In order to increase the sensitivity of risk assessment, training and recalibration for students and faculty
members should be an ongoing process.
Dr. Teich is Associate Professor and Assistant Dean of Clinical Operations, Department of Comprehensive Care, School of Dental
Medicine, Case Western Reserve University; Dr. Demko is Associate Professor, Department of Community Dentistry, School of
Dental Medicine, Case Western Reserve University; Dr. Al-Rawi is Clinical Assistant Professor, School of Dentistry, University
of Michigan; and Mr. Gutberg is a senior dental student, School of Dental Medicine, Case Western Reserve University. Direct
correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Sorin T. Teich, Department of Comprehensive Care, School of Dental Medicine,
Case Western Reserve University, 2124 Cornell Rd., Cleveland, OH 44106; 216-368-6161; Sorin@case.edu.
Keywords: clinical education, clinical teaching, dental education, caries, dental caries, CAMBRA, fluoride, risk assessment
Submitted for publication 3/14/12; accepted 6/19/12

he value of prevention is widely recognized

by the dental profession, and teaching this
topic has become a foundational principle and
integral part of predoctoral dental curricula.1 While
the basic scientific principles that lead to understanding oral disease development have been identified,
translation of these principles into practice may pose
significant challenges during students training and in
practice. Since 1995, risk-based prevention of dental
caries has been promoted,2 and algorithms aimed at
helping clinicians determine a patients risk level
have been developed.3
One study found that clinical protocols for
caries risk assessment and prevention can be implemented in dental education and that students feel
training and practice of caries prevention should
be increased.4 A recent survey of North American
dental schools found that caries risk assessment
has been incorporated into clinical caries manage-

438

ment curricula in 68 percent of those institutions.5,6

Despite significant progress toward developing and
implementing evidence-based caries risk assessment
and management programs in U.S. dental schools,
however, wide variations in interpretation and application of these programs exist.7
Tools for caries risk assessment have been
tested in educational settings, with varying results.
Only 45 percent of the students in one study agreed
that the Cariogram tool developed in Sweden was
easy to understand, and only 36 percent agreed it
was easy to apply; 82 percent said they will not use
this tool in clinical practice.8 Another study found
that only 60 percent of full-time and 33 percent of
part-time faculty members were knowledgeable
about Cariogram use.9 In contrast, most students in
another study agreed that the caries-risk assessment
tool (CAT) developed by the American Academy
of Pediatric Dentistry10 was useful for determining

Journal of Dental Education Volume 77, Number 4

preventive procedures, and 80 percent indicated they

were likely to use it in clinical practice.11 Another
tool (the International Caries Detection and Assessment System, ICDAS)12 was found to improve the
diagnostic skills of students when they tried to detect
occlusal carious lesions.13
The concept of caries management by risk
assessment (CAMBRA) was developed by a consortium of dental-related organizations.14 Guidelines
for clinical implementation of risk determination and
for therapeutic recommendations driven by risk were
published in three articles.15-17 Since caries development is determined by a balance of protective and
pathological factors,18 the clinician should be able to
identify and document these factors, understand their
relative weight in disease development or reversal,
and provide recommendations to patients that will
lead to risk reduction. The CAMBRA protocol aims
to frame these factors into an easy-to-follow template14,15 that will also guide the clinician in making
recommendations to patients.16,17
Although many dental schools have embraced
the CAMBRA concept, integrating it into dental
education is not without challenges. Students have
reported limited confidence in using the protocol
with children younger than five years;6 training
and calibrating students and faculty members are
difficult;19 risk assessment factors are dependent
on the caries prevalence of the population;19-21 and
reimbursement for CAMBRA-related procedures is
low or nonexistent.22 Many dental schools provide
access to care to underserved, low socioeconomic
populations, and prevention costs generated by caries risk assessments can reach an annual amount up
to $1,117 for a high-risk patient.23 Because caries is
more prevalent in lower socioeconomic groups,24,25
the increased prevention costs pose another hurdle
in implementing these protocols in educational and
other institutions that provide care for these patients.
The concept of caries risk assessment and
prevention has also not been fully adopted in general practice. The majority of dentists surveyed in a
U.S. dental network reported performing caries risk
assessment (CRA) for children, but only 14 percent
reported assessing risk using a special form.26 Only
69 percent of the network dentists evaluated adult
patients with CRA, and only 57 percent of these
patients received individualized caries prevention.27
Another survey in the United States found that 72
percent of the responding dentists performed some
type of risk assessment, but only 27 percent documented the outcome and only 51 percent provided a

April 2013 Journal of Dental Education

management plan based on the patients risk status.3

It is clear that enhancing caries prevention education
in predoctoral curricula will have a larger effect on
the profession as the graduates join residencies and
practices.
A CAMBRA-based CRA program has been
gradually implemented since 2008 as part of the
didactic and clinical curriculum at Case Western
Reserve University School of Dental Medicine. The
clinical use of a standardized form to characterize a
patients risk for caries helps the faculty and students
to determine individualized preventive therapeutic
intervention as part of the treatment planning process.
The purposes of this study were to examine the implementation of the CAMBRA-based risk assessment
program in the predoctoral clinic, assess the accuracy
of caries risk evaluation by students, and evaluate the
utilization of professionally applied fluoride varnish
in a moderate- and high-risk patient cohort.

Methods
The faculty adopted a modified version of the
CRA form from the American Dental Association
(ADA).28 The form (Figures 1 and 2) includes a list
of caries risk and protective factors, instructions
that help determine the risks, and caries preventive
recommendations aligned with the CAMBRA protocol.15-17 Students are required to complete the CRA
form as a baseline for their patients before starting
treatment. Fluoride varnish is indicated according
to patient risk as described on the form. Students
are trained regarding CRA in the second year in
classroom lectures and in the clinic with families of
patients for whom they have to assess risk. Additional
training is provided during clinical orientation at the
beginning of the junior year. Faculty members who
supervise determination of patients caries risk status
(CRS) as part of the comprehensive care predoctoral
clinic receive periodic in-house training in departmental seminars.
For this study, initial CRA forms were completed by all junior and senior students for their assigned patients between July 2008 and May 2010, and
each patients CRS and fluoride varnish receipt were
entered into the patients electronic dental record. The
appointment during which the form was completed
for the first time as part of the standard patient evaluation in the comprehensive care predoctoral clinic
was denoted the initial visit. Over a two-month
period (June-July 2010), consecutively scheduled

439

Figure 1. First page of the CRA form

440

Journal of Dental Education Volume 77, Number 4

Figure 2. Second page of the CRA form

April 2013 Journal of Dental Education

441

patients in the predoctoral clinic were screened for

previous caries risk status in their dental record, and
only moderate- or high-risk patients (as determined
at the initial visit) were invited to participate in the
study. The CRA forms filled out at the initial visit
by the students assigned to provide comprehensive
treatment were reassessed, and the CRS was recorded
in a database. These forms were reevaluated by one
of the authors (STT) after the patients were enrolled
in the study, and the CRS was redetermined based
on the risk factors mentioned on the form.
The visit during which the patients were enrolled is called in this article the study visit. At
the study visit, which included four bite-wing radiographs, a new CRA form was completed by two
sophomore students under the supervision of two
faculty members (STT and WAR). Following completion of the CRA forms, the CRS was determined
by one of the authors (STT). Unpaired comparisons
between groups were tested using the Mann-Whitney
or Students t-test; paired comparisons were tested
using the Wilcoxen signed-rank test. The level of
significance for all testing was a=0.05. The study
protocol was approved by the universitys Institutional Review Board; patients signed an informed
consent to participate in the study.

Results
Sixty-eight patients with at least moderate caries risk were enrolled in the study for assessment of
their follow-up CRA. Enrolled patients were at least
eighteen years of age, averaging 57.7 years (Table
1). The study visit occurred on average 12.2 months
after the initial visit (SD=8.1 months). Only thirty
patients out of sixty-eight enrolled (44.1 percent)
received fluoride varnish, despite the fact that our
protocol requires that all moderate-risk and high-risk
patients receive it.
After we reviewed the CRA forms completed
at the initial visit by the student dentists (initial

CRA), it became apparent that the information on

the CRA forms was not used as intended to produce
an accurate initial CRS. When the CRA form algorithm was correctly reapplied to the available data
on the forms, 25 percent (17/68) of the initial CRS
were recategorized as high from the initial moderate category. Underestimates occurred most often
when caries were not identified at the initial visit or
when current caries was the only high-risk factor
(Figure 3). Following the results of reapplying the
CRA algorithm on the initial CRA forms, it was determined that the moderate-risk group was too small
(eight patients) compared with the high-risk group
(sixty patients); therefore, we decided to reclassify
the patients for statistical analysis according to their
detectable caries status at the study visit (Table 1).
High-risk, moderate-risk, and protective factors at the study visit are summarized in Figures 4,
5, and 6. The red columns denote patients who had
detectable caries in dentin at the study visit (Caries+),
whereas the blue columns represent patients without
detectable caries in dentin at the study visit (Caries-).
Comparing the different factors for the Caries+ and
Caries- groups using the Mann-Whitney test showed
that the single statistically significant difference
was the presence of interproximal incipient lesions/
radiolucencies confined to enamel that were more
prevalent in the Caries+ group (Figure 5).
The risk and protective factors documented at
the initial and study visits were compared for the total
pool of patients, stratifying the pool by patients who
received fluoride varnish (FV+) or did not receive
fluoride varnish (FV-) after the initial evaluation
and also stratified by detectable caries at study visit
(Caries+ vs. Caries- groups). The results showed that,
in almost all categories, the students documentation
on the initial CRA forms underestimated both risk
and protective factors compared with the number
of factors identified during the study visit (Table
2). Between the initial visit and the study visit, the
number of risk factors documented increased, regardless of fluoride varnish application or the presence of

Table 1. Study participant groups by detectable caries at study visit

Characteristic
Subjects
Females (%)
Months between initial visit and study visit (mean, sd)
Age (mean, sd)
Fluoride varnish

442

Caries +

Caries -

Total

29 39 68
16 (55.2%)
20 (51.3%)
36 (52.9%)
11.5 (8.7)
12.7 (7.7)
12.2 (8.1)
57.9 (14.8)
57.6 (14.4)
57.7 (14.5)
13 (44.8%)
17 (43.6%)
30 (44.1%)

Journal of Dental Education Volume 77, Number 4

Figure 3. Faculty review of CRA forms from initial visit and reclassification of patients caries risk status

detectable caries at the study visit. The same trend

also was observed for a number of protective factors,
except for the group that received fluoride varnish.
The consistent increase in protective and risk factors
was observed regardless of how patients were stratified, i.e., presence or absence of prior fluoride varnish
and presence or absence of caries at the study visit.

Discussion
While current evidence suggests that the
paradigm shift to prevention has not been universally

implemented,1 integration of caries risk determination

and prevention strategies in dental curricula provide
opportunities to translate scientific evidence into better patient care. Our results show that students incorrectly used the risk assessment algorithm on the CRA
form and underestimated the risk in 25 percent of the
cases. The underestimation occurred especially when
visible cavitation or caries into dentin by radiograph
was the only risk factor or when caries were not identified at the initial visit, despite the presence of other
high-risk factors. This finding is of special interest
because visible cavitation has been reported as one
parameter that is an obvious sign of high caries risk.19

Figure 4. Prevalence of high-risk factors at study visit, by detectable caries on study day

April 2013 Journal of Dental Education

443

Figure 5. Prevalence of moderate-risk factors at study visit, by detectable caries on study day (red star denotes significance, p<0.05)

Figure 6. Prevalence of protective factors at study visit, by detectable caries on study day

Previous studies have analyzed how dental students perform risk assessments and how practitioners
use these tools in practice, and the general consensus
is that incorporating risk assessment protocols such
as CAMBRA into predoctoral curricula is not without challenges.6,7,19,22 The same conclusion can be
reached regarding the use of caries risk assessment
and prevention techniques in practice.3,26,27
The first step that determines risk evaluation is
identifying the risk and protective factors; to the best
of our knowledge, no one has previously reported the

444

accuracy of dental students in performing this task.

One study19 that enrolled eighty-nine patients who
had a follow-up CRA (mean time after baseline=14
months, SD=4.5 months) described only the possible
association between different risk factors at the initial
visit and presence of caries at the follow-up visit.
When we analyzed the relation of risk and
protective factors at the study visit to the presence or
absence of caries in dentin, our results showed that
only incipient interproximal enamel lesions/radiolucencies were related to the presence of in-dentin

Journal of Dental Education Volume 77, Number 4

Table 2. Mean number of risk and protective factors determined at initial CRA and at study visit, stratified by fluoride
varnish (FV) receipt and detectable caries at study visit
Participants

Mean Number of Factors

All
N=68

FV +
N=30

FV
N=38

Caries +
N=29

Caries N=38

High-risk factors

Initial
2.5
2.7
2.4
2.7
2.4
Study 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.7 2.9
p-value* <0.001 0.052 0.001 0.03 0.027

All risk factors

Initial
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.2
Study 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.2 4.2
p-value* <0.001 0.025 0.001 0.002 0.002

All protective factors Initial

2.8
3
2.6
2.7
2.7

Study 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.3

p-value* <0.001 0.103 0.012 0.012 0.012
*p-value determined by Wilcoxen signed-rank test.

caries. This moderate-risk factor has been reported

by others to have the highest odds ratio (OR=13.55)
for the presence of in-dentin caries, even more so
than factors classified in the high-risk category that
have odds ratios between 0.99 to 2.75.19 This finding
is easy to interpret because incipient interproximal
lesions usually denote that the patient presents with
previous caries activity that has been found to be
correlated with development of future lesions.3
In our study, the fact that students underestimated both risk and protective factors at the initial
visit compared with the study visit is of significance:
the results show that students are not rigorous enough
in documenting these factors and in determining
the patients risk. This concern is amplified by the
fact that, at our dental school, the faculty member
confirms the risk determination after reviewing the
form with the patient and the student. These results
suggest that further effort should be made to calibrate
both students and faculty members and to identify
the reasons why the risk factors are underestimated
rather than overestimated, leading to a lower risk
determination. One explanation may be that, on our
risk assessment form, mentioning protective factors
in a separate category may overemphasize their
importance, so that students incorporate these protective factors in the risk-determination algorithm. In
addition, the complexity of the form and the caries
risk determination algorithm may pose challenges
to both students and faculty members in the clinic.
The ADAs risk assessment form28 mentions
only fluoride exposure as a protective factor, and even

April 2013 Journal of Dental Education

complete absence of exposure to fluoride makes only

a minor contribution to increasing the risk. In order
to be classified as high risk according to the ADA
form, a patient has to accumulate ten risk points; the
absence of fluoride exposure will contribute only one
point. Use of fluorides has also been listed by dentists
as one of the less influential caries-risk factors for
treatment planning.27
It is of interest that the ADA form does not
include use of Xylitol and/or Chlorhexidine in the
protective factors category; this contradicts the guidelines for CAMBRA16-18 but is aligned with other studies that showed these materials having only marginal
or insignificant value for caries risk reduction.4,19,29-31
Despite the ambiguity of the value of using Xylitol
and Chlorhexidine, 73 percent of North American
dental schools (including ours) still instruct patients
to use antibacterials as a strategy for caries prevention.5 We suggest that, in light of the new evidence
for the use of nonfluoride caries-preventive agents,31
the clinic protocols should be reviewed.
Our results show that no protective factor
(fluoride, Xylitol, or Chlorhexidine) was related to
the presence of caries at the study visit. Stratifying
the patient pool either by exposure to fluoride varnish
application before the study visit or by presence of
caries at the study visit showed a similar pattern of
risk and protective factors underestimation by dental
students at the initial CRA visit.
According to our protocol as reflected by the
CRA form, all sixty-eight enrolled patients were
supposed to receive fluoride varnish following their

445

initial visit, but only 44 percent of them did. This

result agrees with previous studies from network
practices that reported that only 57 percent of patients
with CRA receive individualized caries prevention.27
Another study19 argued that the barrier to using antimicrobial therapy for mitigating caries risk in an
educational setting is mainly financial and is related
to the fact that preventive care is not eligible for
reimbursement. Therefore, we can also assume that
financial barriers played a significant role in fluoride
varnish acceptance in our patient cohort.
The risk assessment underestimation leads to an
increased number of false negatives when the CRS is
determined: that is, patients who should be classified
as high risk are classified as moderate risk. Failure to
correctly classify these at-risk patients may lead to
undertreatment and progression of the disease. To increase the sensitivity of the risk assessment, training
and recalibration for students and faculty should be
an ongoing process. Increasing the sensitivity of the
CRA could lead to an increase in false-positive CRS,
but this will not result in any harm to the patient . . .
other than economical (cost of prevention).21
The results and conclusions of this exploratory
study should be interpreted with caution because the
initial CRA data were collected by a large number
of students as opposed to the CRA at the study visit,
which was completed by two students supervised by
two faculty members. Another limitation of the study
is that, despite the statistically significant results, the
number of patients enrolled in the study is relatively
small. We also did not survey the patients in the study
for the reasons of not receiving fluoride varnish.
Within these limitations, the following conclusions may be drawn:
1. Student dentists did not routinely use the information from the CRA form to arrive at the correct
caries risk status.
2. The presence of untreated caries did not routinely
prompt students to place patients in a high-risk
category; similarly, multiple high-risk factors
without current untreated caries also did not
always prompt students to place patients in a
high-risk category.
3. Among the factors examined during caries risk
assessment at the study visit, only the presence
of interproximal enamel lesions/radiolucencies
was found to be associated with the presence of
in-dentin caries at the time of assessment.
4. In this cohort of patients, fluoride varnish was
underutilized as a treatment modality.

446

REFERENCES

1. Garcia RI, Sohn W. The paradigm shift to prevention

and its relationship to dental education. J Dent Educ
2012;76(1):36-45.
2. Caries diagnosis and risk assessment: a review of preventive strategies and management. J Am Dent Assoc
1995;126(Suppl):1S-24S.
3. Fontana M, Zero DT. Assessing patients caries risk. J Am
Dent Assoc 2006;137(9):1231-9.
4. Autio-Gold JT, Tomar SL. Dental students opinions and
knowledge about caries management and prevention. J
Dent Educ 2008;72(1):26-32.
5. Brown JP. A new curriculum framework for clinical prevention and population health, with a review of clinical
caries prevention teaching in U.S. and Canadian dental
schools. J Dent Educ 2007;71(5):572-8.
6. Caldern SH, Gilbert P, Zeff RN, Gansky SA, Featherstone
JDB, Weintraub JA, Gerbert B. Dental students knowledge, attitudes, and intended behaviors regarding caries
risk assessment: impact of years of education and patient
age. J Dent Educ 2007;71(11):1420-7.
7. Yorty JS, Walls AT, Wearden S. Caries risk assessment/
treatment programs in U.S. dental schools: an eleven-year
follow-up. J Dent Educ 2011;75(1):62-7.
8. Bratthall D, Petersson GH. Cariogram: a multifactorial
risk assessment model for a multifactorial disease. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005;33(4):256-64.
9. Gonzalez CD, Okunseri C. Senior dental students experience with cariogram in a pediatric dentistry clinic. J Dent
Educ 2010;74(2):123-9.
10. Policy on use of a caries-risk assessment tool (CAT) for
infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dent 2008;30(7
Suppl):29-33.
11. Nainar S, Straffon LH. Predoctoral dental student evaluation of American Academy of Pediatric Dentistrys cariesrisk assessment tool. J Dent Educ 2006;70(3):292-5.
12. Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M, Amaya A, Sen A, Hasson
H, Pitts NB. The International Caries Detection and
Assessment System (ICDAS): an integrated system for
measuring dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol
2007;35(3):170-8.
13. Diniz MB, Lima LM, Santos-Pinto L, Eckert GJ, Zandona
AGF, Cordeiro RCL. Influence of the ICDAS e-learning
program for occlusal caries detection on dental students.
J Dent Educ 2010;74(8):862-8.
14. Featherstone JD, Adair SM, Anderson MH, Berkowitz
RJ, Bird WF, Crall JJ, et al. Caries management by risk
assessment: consensus statement, April 2002. J Calif Dent
Assoc 2003;31(3):257-69.
15. Featherstone JDB, Domejean-Orliaguet S, Jenson L, Wolff
M, Young D. Caries risk assessment in practice for age 6
through adult. J Calif Dent Assoc 2007;35(10):703.
16. Jenson L, Budenz A, Featherstone J, Ramos-Gomez
F, Spolsky V, Young D. Clinical protocols for caries
management by risk assessment. J Calif Dent Assoc
2007;35(10):714.
17. Spolsky VW, Black BP, Jenson L. Products: old, new, and
emerging. J Calif Dent Assoc 2007;35(10):724.
18. Featherstone JDB. The science and practice of caries
prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131(7):887.

Journal of Dental Education Volume 77, Number 4

19. Domjean-Orliaguet S, Gansky SA, Featherstone JD.

Caries risk assessment in an educational environment. J
Dent Educ 2006;70(12):1346-54.
20. Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S,
Ndiaye C. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to
oral health. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83(9):661-9.
21. Zero D, Fontana M, Lennon AM. Clinical applications and
outcomes of using indicators of risk in caries management.
J Dent Educ 2001;65(10):1126-32.
22. Fontana M, Zero D. Bridging the gap in caries management between research and practice through education: the Indiana University experience. J Dent Educ
2007;71(5):579-91.
23. Benn DK. Applying evidence-based dentistry to caries
management in dental practice: a computerized approach.
J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133(11):1543.
24. Beirne P, Clarkson JE, Worthington HV. Recall intervals
for oral health in primary care patients. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev 2007(4):CD004346.
25. Reisine ST, Psoter W. Socioeconomic status and selected
behavioral determinants as risk factors for dental caries.
J Dent Educ 2001;65(10):1009-16.

April 2013 Journal of Dental Education

26. Riley JL III, Qvist V, Fellows JL, Rindal DB, Richman

JS, Gilbert GH, Gordan VV. Dentists use of caries risk
assessment in children: findings from the dental PBRN.
Gen Dent 2010;58(3):230.
27. Riley JL III, Gordan VV, Ajmo CT, Bockman H, Jackson
MB, Gilbert GH. Dentists use of caries risk assessment
and individualized caries prevention for their adult patients: findings from The Dental Practice-Based Research
Network. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011;39:56473.
28. American Dental Association. Caries form (patients
over 6 years). At: www.ada.org/sections/professional
Resources/.../topics_caries_over6.d. Accessed: February
20, 2012.
29. Anusavice KJ. Present and future approaches for the
control of caries. J Dent Educ 2005;69(5):538-54.
30. Bader JD, Shugars DA, Bonito AJ. A systematic review
of selected caries prevention and management methods.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29(6):399-411.
31. Rethman MP, Beltrn-Aguilar ED, Billings RJ, Burne RA,
Clark M, Donly KJ, et al. Nonfluoride caries-preventive
agents. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142(9):1065-71.

447