Carlota Rodrigues,Vanessa Machado,Luís Proença,José João Mendes,Thomas Kocher,Birte Holtfreter,Zehra Yonel,João Botelho
{"title":"Validation of the Diabetes Risk Assessment in Dentistry Score in NHANES 2009-2014.","authors":"Carlota Rodrigues,Vanessa Machado,Luís Proença,José João Mendes,Thomas Kocher,Birte Holtfreter,Zehra Yonel,João Botelho","doi":"10.1111/jcpe.70037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIM\r\nTo validate the Diabetes Risk Assessment in Dentistry Score (DDS) in a US population-based sample and compare its performance with the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk calculator and the Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA).\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nData were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) covering the 2009-2014 cycles. The study focused on participants aged 40 years and older who included complete data for DDS and ADA risk score assessment. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), while decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the model.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nOf the 6259 participants included, the average age was 57.3 years (±12.0 years, range: 40-80 years) and the sample was evenly distributed by sex (50.8% female). DDS showed limited discriminative ability with an AUC of 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.65), and DCA analysis showed higher net benefit than the 'Treat None' strategy across most probability thresholds, indicating added clinical value in decision making. The ADA risk calculator and LRA showed an AUC of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.59-0.63) and 0.631 (95% CI: 0.615-0.647), which were below the DDS performance.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nThe DDS demonstrated acceptable performance for American adults aged 40 years or older, and showed marginally superior performance compared with the ADA diabetes risk calculator and LRA, highlighting its potential utility in dental practice settings as a complementary screening tool.","PeriodicalId":15380,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Periodontology","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.70037","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
AIM
To validate the Diabetes Risk Assessment in Dentistry Score (DDS) in a US population-based sample and compare its performance with the American Diabetes Association (ADA) risk calculator and the Leicester Risk Assessment (LRA).
METHODS
Data were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) covering the 2009-2014 cycles. The study focused on participants aged 40 years and older who included complete data for DDS and ADA risk score assessment. Model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), while decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the model.
RESULTS
Of the 6259 participants included, the average age was 57.3 years (±12.0 years, range: 40-80 years) and the sample was evenly distributed by sex (50.8% female). DDS showed limited discriminative ability with an AUC of 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-0.65), and DCA analysis showed higher net benefit than the 'Treat None' strategy across most probability thresholds, indicating added clinical value in decision making. The ADA risk calculator and LRA showed an AUC of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.59-0.63) and 0.631 (95% CI: 0.615-0.647), which were below the DDS performance.
CONCLUSION
The DDS demonstrated acceptable performance for American adults aged 40 years or older, and showed marginally superior performance compared with the ADA diabetes risk calculator and LRA, highlighting its potential utility in dental practice settings as a complementary screening tool.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Periodontology was founded by the British, Dutch, French, German, Scandinavian, and Swiss Societies of Periodontology.
The aim of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology is to provide the platform for exchange of scientific and clinical progress in the field of Periodontology and allied disciplines, and to do so at the highest possible level. The Journal also aims to facilitate the application of new scientific knowledge to the daily practice of the concerned disciplines and addresses both practicing clinicians and academics. The Journal is the official publication of the European Federation of Periodontology but wishes to retain its international scope.
The Journal publishes original contributions of high scientific merit in the fields of periodontology and implant dentistry. Its scope encompasses the physiology and pathology of the periodontium, the tissue integration of dental implants, the biology and the modulation of periodontal and alveolar bone healing and regeneration, diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention and therapy of periodontal disease, the clinical aspects of tooth replacement with dental implants, and the comprehensive rehabilitation of the periodontal patient. Review articles by experts on new developments in basic and applied periodontal science and associated dental disciplines, advances in periodontal or implant techniques and procedures, and case reports which illustrate important new information are also welcome.