Training Protocol and Calibration of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System in a School-Based Clinical Trial of Elementary School-Age Children
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper demonstrates International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) training procedures and inter/intra-examiner reliability for lesion severity, activity, and filling criteria in an elementary school setting. METHODS: ICDAS training was conducted in December 2021 prior to a school-based cluster-randomized controlled trial. A total of 59 children (6-8 years old) in grades 1-2 from one school in Houston, Texas were recruited. Two licensed dentists received a 5-day training from an ICDAS trainer at the participating school. Thirty-eight children were evaluated at least once by each dental trainee, and 18 had repeat examinations. The ICDAS criteria were used to classify dental caries lesion severity (0-6), lesion activity (active/inactive), and filling material (0-9) of all visually available primary and permanent tooth surfaces. Inter and intra-examiner reliability between each dental trainee and the "gold standard" trainer was evaluated using Kappa statistics. RESULTS: For lesion severity, the examination indicated an inter-rater weighted Kappa of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.87) for each trainee examiner compared to the gold standard examiner. The Kappas increased slightly from the first to second examinations (lesion-weighted Kappa: 0.76 to 0.84 and 0.82 to 0.84). The intra-rater reliability indicated excellent reliability for lesion and filling (0.83 to 0.94) and moderate for activity (0.58). CONCLUSIONS: ICDAS training/calibration were essential to ensure accuracy and reliability of dental caries measurements. The study demonstrated that ICDAS training of dentists with no prior criteria experience is feasible in a community setting and can lead to high reliability and repeatability.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
3 of 9 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Interpretationcitation
The lesion code weighted Kappas in this study (0.77-0.82) were similar to or higher than those in a similar adult study (0.42-0.83).
“The lesion code weighted Kappas in the current study (0.77–0.82) were similar or higher than a similar study conducted in adults (0.42–0.83).16”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [16] source
The cited paper is an adult dental-caries study, and its Abstract > Results gives 0.42–0.83 for weighted kappas and observed-to-maximum kappa ratios taken together. Its Results section reports weighted inter-examiner kappas of 0.34–0.53, so 0.42–0.83 is not the range for weighted kappas alone. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Using ICDAS helps researchers observe subtle intervention effects and nuanced changes from interventions.
“Secondly, the adoption of ICDAS facilitates the observation of subtle intervention effects, allowing researchers to discern nuanced changes resulting from the interventions.6,7”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [6] source
- cites [7] source
The Introduction describes ICDAS as a seven-category scale of caries severity, and the Discussion says it can provide a more detailed assessment than the criteria used in these trials. Those passages support its ability to distinguish finer clinical differences, but the paper does not show that ICDAS detects subtle intervention effects or changes resulting from interventions. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Interpretationcitation
The inter-rater Kappa scores in this study were similar to those from a previous study (0.69-0.81) conducted in a university pediatric dental and endodontic clinic.
“The inter-reliability kappa scores reported in this study were similar to a previous study (0.69–0.81) that conducted ICDAS training in a pediatric dental and endodontic clinic in a university institution,10 a finding similar to prior studies.14”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites [14] source
The Reliability of ICDAS section (page unavailable) reports inter-examiner kappa scores from examiners trained and calibrated with ICDAS, including values that overlap the claimed range. It does not report a 0.69–0.81 range or identify the study setting as a university pediatric dental and endodontic clinic. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
Examiners showed moderate consistency with the ICDAS trainer in identifying lesion activity.
“We observed moderate consistency among examiners in identifying lesion activity with the ICDAS trainer.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Lesion severity inter-rater agreement with the gold standard examiner yielded weighted Kappa values of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71-0.82) for one trainee and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.87) for the other.
“For lesion severity, the examination indicated an inter-rater weighted Kappa of 0.77 (95% CI 0.71–0.82) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77–0.87) for each trainee examiner compared to the gold standard examiner.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“This resulted in a weighted Kappa=0.77 (95% CI 0.71–0.82) for Examiner A versus B, and a weighted Kappa=0.82 (95% CI 0.77–0.87) for Examiner A versus C (Table 3).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Results · plain
- Findingown data
Inter-rater reliability for filling was good to excellent.
“We observed good-to-excellent inter-reliability weighted kappa scores for the filling.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
Dental examiners with no prior ICDAS experience who participate in observational longitudinal or clinical trial studies can be trained and calibrated.
“Findings were similar to a study by Nelson et al., 2011 reporting high intra-rater reliability for filling, indicating that dental examiners participating in observational longitudinal or clinical trial studies with no experience in ICDAS criteria can be trained and calibrated.10”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationown data
ICDAS training and calibration are feasible in 6- to 8-year-old children in a school setting.
“We were able to overcome these challenges to successfully conduct this training and calibration exercise, showing that these studies are feasible in 6–8-year-old children in a school setting.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
The small study sample could reduce the statistical precision of the Kappa confidence intervals.
“Finally, the study sample size was small, which could affect the statistical precision of the Kappa confidence intervals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisecitation
ICDAS is regarded as a sensitive measure for detecting lesions, particularly in pediatric populations.
“While the ICDAS criteria is considered to be a sensitive measure to lesion detection, specifically in pediatric populations,6 there is still a need to train and calibrate dental examiners to ensure a standardized assessment with high reliability of outcome over time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [6] source
- Premisecitation
ICDAS was estimated to detect 50% to 58% more caries prevalence in children than the WHO DMFT/dmft system.
“Compared to the World Health Organization (WHO) DMFT/dmft classification system, ICDAS was estimated to detect 50% to 58% higher caries prevalence rates in children, highlighting the advantage of ICDAS as a sensitive outcome measure in public health programs and research aiming to prevent and control disease progression.10”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [10]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- May combine two claims. 10
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
- Not yet classified. 1
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor ICDAS lesion coding, agreement was greater at the >2 cutpoint than at the >1 cutpoint, with Kappa values of 0.72 and 0.77 for the two examiners.
“Kappas for both cutpoints of >2 or >1 for the ICDAS lesion coding indicated greater agreement for >2 cutpoint (Kappa=0.72 and 0.77 for the two examiners, Table 5).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIntra-rater reliability was excellent for lesion and filling scores (0.83 to 0.94) and moderate for activity (0.58) for both trainee dentists.
“The intra-rater reliability indicated excellent reliability for lesion and filling (0.83 to 0.94) and moderate for activity (0.58).”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“The intra-rater reliability for lesion and filling ranged from 0.83 to 0.94, indicating excellent reliability. The intra-rater reliability was moderate for activity at 0.58 for both trainee dentists (Table 4).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Results · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataTooth type agreement was 99% between Examiner A and Examiner B and 98% between Examiner A and Examiner C.
“Agreement of tooth type between Examiners A versus B was 99%, and A versus C was 98% (Supplemental Table 2).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataLesion severity weighted Kappa values rose slightly between the first and second examinations, from 0.77 to 0.84 for one trainee and from 0.82 to 0.84 for the other.
“The Kappas increased slightly from the first to second examinations (lesion-weighted Kappa: 0.77 to 0.84 and 0.82 to 0.84).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn the participating children, tooth decay prevalence was 74% when using a lesion score >1 and 61% when using a lesion score >2.
“The prevalence of tooth decay in the cohort of participating children was 74% (using a lesion score >1 for at least one surface/tooth) and 61% (using a lesion score >2 for at least one surface/tooth).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe ICDAS trainer was a licensed practicing dentist who had performed over 5000 ICDAS examinations and had over a decade of ICDAS training experience.
“The ICDAS trainer is a licensed and practicing dentist, has conducted over 5000 dental examinations using ICDAS, and has conducted trainings for clinical trials and observational research studies using ICDAS for over a decade.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe study protocol and recruitment materials were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.
“The study protocol and recruitment material were approved by the Institutional Review Board Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationcitationThe dental caries prevalence in the participating children was similar to that reported for Texas children of the same age.
“This prevalence is similar to that seen across Texas for the same age group.4”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [4]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningRecording errors could arise because dentists verbally called scores to recorders, and these errors were not measured during training.
“The ICDAS scoring consisted of the dentist verbally calling the score to the recorder, who would then write the scores in the designated field on the case report form. This could lead to recording errors which was not measured during training.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataICDAS training for dentists without prior criteria experience is feasible in a community setting and can produce high reliability and repeatability.
“The study demonstrated that ICDAS training of dentists with no prior criteria experience is feasible in a community setting and can lead to high reliability and repeatability.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion: · hedged
“Findings were similar to a study by Nelson et al., 2011 reporting high intra-rater reliability for filling, indicating that dental examiners participating in observational longitudinal or clinical trial studies with no experience in ICDAS criteria can be trained and calibrated.10”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Discussion: · hedged
Not yet classified.
PremiseMissing teeth were not counted as events because a visual examination cannot determine the reason for missingness and missing teeth were expected to exfoliate naturally in this age range.
“Missing tooth was not considered as an event since the reason for a missing tooth cannot be determined with a visual examination only, and missing teeth were expected to naturally exfoliate due to the age range of the children assessed.”
Quote in the paperNot yet classifiedProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataWritten parental consent and verbal child assent were obtained at the time of measurement.
“Written consent was obtained from the parent and verbal assent was obtained from the child at the time of measurement.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe confidence intervals for Kappa did not adjust for correlation among teeth within the same child.
“No adjustment was made to account for the correlation of the teeth within the same child in the calculation of confidence intervals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe three examiners independently examined each child at least once, and 18 children were examined twice by each examiner.
“Days 3 to 5 of the training consisted of a series of assessments where the three examiners (trainer and trainees) independently examined each child at least once (n=38), of which 18 were assessed twice by each examiner (a total of six assessments for each child to assess whether the agreement improved upon re-assessing the child after calibration).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningBecause air syringes were not used due to COVID-19 restrictions, identifying certain filling stages, such as partial sealant and tooth-colored fillings, may have been more difficult.
“Restrictions on using air syringes (due to the COVID-19 pandemic) may have caused difficulties in identifying certain stages of tooth fillings, such as partial sealant and tooth-colored fillings.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Number examined by every dentist differs
MajorThe abstract identifies 38 children as having been evaluated at least once by each trainee, whereas Results says all 59 children were examined at least once by each dentist. The text does not reconcile those totals.
“Thirty-eight children were evaluated at least once by each dental trainee, and 18 had repeat examinations.”
“A total of 59 children aged 6–8 years were recruited for this study and were examined by each dentist at least once.”
Conflicting counts for children recruited
MinorThe paper gives two different recruitment totals. One methods passage says 63 children were recruited and 59 met inclusion criteria, while another says a total of 59 children were recruited.
“A total of 63 children aged 6 to 8 years in grades 1st and 2nd were recruited, of which 59 met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).”
“A total of 59 children (6–8 years old) in grades 1–2 from one school in Houston, Texas were recruited.”
Different first-stage lesion severity kappa for examiner A vs B
MinorOne results passage reports examiner A vs B lesion-severity kappa as 0.77, while another reports 0.76 for the same first assessment. This is a direct inconsistency in the reported value.
“The Kappas increased slightly from the first to second examinations (lesion-weighted Kappa: 0.77 to 0.84 and 0.82 to 0.84).”
“Comparing the lesion severity score by Examiner A to the first and second examinations of the trainers, the Kappas increased from 0.76 to 0.84 for examiners A versus B, and from 0.82 to 0.84 for examiners A versus C.”
Different totals for the number of recruited children
MinorThe paper gives two different recruitment totals. One section says 59 children were recruited, while another says 63 were recruited and 59 met the inclusion criteria.
“A total of 59 children (6–8 years old) in grades 1–2 from one school in Houston, Texas were recruited.”
“A total of 63 children aged 6 to 8 years in grades 1st and 2nd were recruited, of which 59 met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).”
Mismatch in the reported first-round kappa for examiner B
MinorOne results passage says examiner B's weighted kappa increased from 0.77 to 0.84, while another says it increased from 0.76 to 0.84. These two statements cannot both describe the same comparison.
“The Kappas increased slightly from the first to second examinations (lesion-weighted Kappa: 0.77 to 0.84 and 0.82 to 0.84).”
“Repeating measures in the second assessment resulted in a slight increase in the weighted kappa scores for trainee B (from 0.76 to 0.84) and trainee C (from 0.82 to 0.84) for lesion severity which was not clinically significant.”
Initial lesion Kappa differs for trainee B
MinorThe abstract gives 0.77 as the first-examination Kappa in its first-to-second comparison, while Results gives 0.76 for the corresponding A-versus-B comparison.
“The Kappas increased slightly from the first to second examinations (lesion-weighted Kappa: 0.77 to 0.84 and 0.82 to 0.84).”
“the Kappas increased from 0.76 to 0.84 for examiners A versus B, and from 0.82 to 0.84 for examiners A versus C.”
Recruitment total differs between Methods and Results
MinorMethods says 63 children were recruited and 59 met the inclusion criteria. Results instead calls 59 the number recruited.
“A total of 63 children aged 6 to 8 years in grades 1st and 2nd were recruited, of which 59 met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1).”
“A total of 59 children aged 6–8 years were recruited for this study”
Cites
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316447303300309 · Cited by 3,354 · see citing works
Ismail, A. I., Sohn, W., Tellez, M., Amaya, A., Sen, A., Hasson, H., & Pitts, N. B. (2007) · Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00347.x · Cited by 1,535 · see citing works
For debate: problems with the DMF index pertinent to dental caries data analysis
Broadbent, J. M., & Thomson, W. M. (2005) · Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00259.x · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Braga, M. M., Oliveira, L. B., Bonini, G. A. V. C., Bönecker, M., & Mendes, F. M. (2009) · Caries Research · doi:10.1159/000217855 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
ICDAS II CRITERIA (INTERNATIONAL CARIES DETECTION AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEM)
Dikmen, B. (2015) · European Oral Research · doi:10.17096/jiufd.38691 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Disparities in Early Childhood Caries
Vargas, C. M., & Ronzio, C. R. (2006) · BMC Oral Health · doi:10.1186/1472-6831-6-s1-s3 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Lin, M., Griffin, S. O., Gooch, B. F., et al. (2019) · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Caries experience in a child population in a deprived area of Brazil, using ICDAS II
de Amorim, R. G., Figueiredo, M. J., Leal, S. C., Mulder, J., & Frencken, J. E. (2011) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-011-0528-9 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Two decades of persisting income‐disparities in dental caries among U.S. children and adolescents
Slade, G. D., & Sanders, A. E. (2018) · Journal of Public Health Dentistry · doi:10.1111/jphd.12261 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Warren, J. J., Weber‐Gasparoni, K., Tinanoff, N., Batliner, T. S., Jue, B., Santo, W., Garcia, R. I., Gansky, S. A., & Centers, E. C. C. C. (2015) · Journal of Public Health Dentistry · doi:10.1111/jphd.12102 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Examiner training and reliability in two randomized clinical trials of adult dental caries.
Banting, D. W., Amaechi, B. T., Bader, J. D., Blanchard, P., Gilbert, G. H., Gullion, C. M., Holland, J. C., Makhija, S. K., Papas, A., Ritter, A. V., et al. (2011) · Journal of public health dentistry · doi:10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00278.x · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Christian, B., Amezdroz, E., Calache, H., et al. (2017) · Community Dental Health · doi:10.1922/cdh_4102christian06 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Chuang, R., Byrd-Williams, C. E., Yamal, J., et al. (2022) · Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications · doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2022.101033 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationNabarrette, M., dos SANTOS, P. R., Assaf, A. V., Ambrosano, G. M. B., Meneghim, M. D. C., Vedovello, S. A. S., & Cortellazzi, K. L. (2023) · Brazilian Oral Research · doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0023 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 10.1922/CDH_2612Nelson05 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sharma, S. V., Deason, J. E., Wang, M., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph22040513 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Yamal, J., Mofleh, D., Chuang, R., Wang, M., Johnson, K., Garcia‐Quintana, A., Titiloye, T., Nelson, S., & Sharma, S. V.
- Affiliations
- Department of Biostatistics and Data Science Coordinating Center for Clinical Trials, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth Houston) School of Public Health Houston Texas USA
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
- Harris Health System (US)
- Department of Epidemiology Center for Health Equity, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth Houston) School of Public Health Houston Texas USA
- Case Western Reserve University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sharma, Shreela V.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Health Dentistry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-12-08
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 13-20
- ISSN
- 0022-4006 (ISSN-L)
- 1752-7325
- PMC
- PMC12227147
- OpenAlex
- W4405155953
- Semantic Scholar
- d1c213077580afa0f3c23a2bc59dffc2c61f5ef1
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 0.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Public Health Dentistry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Digital Commons-TMC (Texas Medical Center) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (4UH3DE029213–02)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
- Keywords
- ICDAS, dental caries assessment, examiner reliability, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, caries activity, dental fillings, primary teeth, permanent teeth, dental education
- MeSH terms
- Calibration, Child, Dental Caries, Female, Humans, Male, Texas, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review