Cargando…

An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries in excavated cavities. Fifty extracted molar with deep dentinal carious lesions were excavated using a slow-speed handpiece. All cavities were assessed by laser fluorescen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Unlu, Nimet, Ermis, Rabia Banu, Sener, Sevgi, Kucukyilmaz, Ebru, Cetin, Ali Riza
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2896856/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20613961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/864935
_version_ 1782183397785862144
author Unlu, Nimet
Ermis, Rabia Banu
Sener, Sevgi
Kucukyilmaz, Ebru
Cetin, Ali Riza
author_facet Unlu, Nimet
Ermis, Rabia Banu
Sener, Sevgi
Kucukyilmaz, Ebru
Cetin, Ali Riza
author_sort Unlu, Nimet
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries in excavated cavities. Fifty extracted molar with deep dentinal carious lesions were excavated using a slow-speed handpiece. All cavities were assessed by laser fluorescence(LF) device, electronic caries monitor(ECM), and caries detector dye(CDD) by three independent observers blindly. The measurements were repeated after two weeks. Specimens containing dentin slices 150 μm in thickness were prepared for histological analyses. The existence and absence of carious dentin was determined using a lightmicroscope. The average intraobserver accuracy was 1.00 (perfect agreement) for CDD, 0.86 (excellent agreement) for ECM, and 0.50 (good agreement) for LF. The average interobserver accuracy values were 0.92 (excellent agreement), (0.36 marginal agreement) and 0.48 (good agreement), for CDD, ECM, and LF, respectively. The average specificity was 0.60 for CDD, 73% for ECM, and 0.50 for LF. The average sensitivity was 0.55 for CDD, 0.85 for LF, and 0.47 for ECM. The average accuracy values were 0.53, 0.51, and 0.81 for CDD, ECM, and LF, respectively. LF had the greatest sensitivity and accuracy values of any of the methods tested. As a conclusion, LF device is appeared to most reliable method in detection of remain caries in cavity. However, because of its technical sensitivity it may susceptible to variations in measurements. To pay attention to the rule of usage and repeated measurements can minimize such variations in clinical practice. It was concluded that LF is an improvement on the currently available aids for residual caries detection.
format Text
id pubmed-2896856
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28968562010-07-07 An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries Unlu, Nimet Ermis, Rabia Banu Sener, Sevgi Kucukyilmaz, Ebru Cetin, Ali Riza Int J Dent Research Article The aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries in excavated cavities. Fifty extracted molar with deep dentinal carious lesions were excavated using a slow-speed handpiece. All cavities were assessed by laser fluorescence(LF) device, electronic caries monitor(ECM), and caries detector dye(CDD) by three independent observers blindly. The measurements were repeated after two weeks. Specimens containing dentin slices 150 μm in thickness were prepared for histological analyses. The existence and absence of carious dentin was determined using a lightmicroscope. The average intraobserver accuracy was 1.00 (perfect agreement) for CDD, 0.86 (excellent agreement) for ECM, and 0.50 (good agreement) for LF. The average interobserver accuracy values were 0.92 (excellent agreement), (0.36 marginal agreement) and 0.48 (good agreement), for CDD, ECM, and LF, respectively. The average specificity was 0.60 for CDD, 73% for ECM, and 0.50 for LF. The average sensitivity was 0.55 for CDD, 0.85 for LF, and 0.47 for ECM. The average accuracy values were 0.53, 0.51, and 0.81 for CDD, ECM, and LF, respectively. LF had the greatest sensitivity and accuracy values of any of the methods tested. As a conclusion, LF device is appeared to most reliable method in detection of remain caries in cavity. However, because of its technical sensitivity it may susceptible to variations in measurements. To pay attention to the rule of usage and repeated measurements can minimize such variations in clinical practice. It was concluded that LF is an improvement on the currently available aids for residual caries detection. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2010 2010-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC2896856/ /pubmed/20613961 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/864935 Text en Copyright © 2010 Nimet Unlu et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Unlu, Nimet
Ermis, Rabia Banu
Sener, Sevgi
Kucukyilmaz, Ebru
Cetin, Ali Riza
An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries
title An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries
title_full An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries
title_fullStr An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries
title_full_unstemmed An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries
title_short An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries
title_sort in vitro comparison of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2896856/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20613961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/864935
work_keys_str_mv AT unlunimet aninvitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT ermisrabiabanu aninvitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT senersevgi aninvitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT kucukyilmazebru aninvitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT cetinaliriza aninvitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT unlunimet invitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT ermisrabiabanu invitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT senersevgi invitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT kucukyilmazebru invitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries
AT cetinaliriza invitrocomparisonofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsindetectionofresidualdentinalcaries