Cargando…

A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel

BACKGROUND: Different methods have been used for detecting developmental defects of enamel (DDE). This study aimed to compare photographic and replication methods with the direct clinical examination method for detecting DDE in children's permanent incisors. METHODS: 110 8-10-year-old schoolchi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Golkari, Ali, Sabokseir, Aira, Pakshir, Hamid-Reza, Dean, M Christopher, Sheiham, Aubrey, Watt, Richard G
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3103494/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21510890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-11-16
_version_ 1782204527526543360
author Golkari, Ali
Sabokseir, Aira
Pakshir, Hamid-Reza
Dean, M Christopher
Sheiham, Aubrey
Watt, Richard G
author_facet Golkari, Ali
Sabokseir, Aira
Pakshir, Hamid-Reza
Dean, M Christopher
Sheiham, Aubrey
Watt, Richard G
author_sort Golkari, Ali
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Different methods have been used for detecting developmental defects of enamel (DDE). This study aimed to compare photographic and replication methods with the direct clinical examination method for detecting DDE in children's permanent incisors. METHODS: 110 8-10-year-old schoolchildren were randomly selected from an examined sample of 335 primary Shiraz school children. Modified DDE index was used in all three methods. Direct examinations were conducted by two calibrated examiners using flat oral mirrors and tongue blades. Photographs were taken using a digital SLR camera (Nikon D-80), macro lens, macro flashes, and matt flash filters. Impressions were taken using additional-curing silicon material and casts made in orthodontic stone. Impressions and models were both assessed using dental loupes (magnification=x3.5). Each photograph/impression/cast was assessed by two calibrated examiners. Reliability of methods was assessed using kappa agreement tests. Kappa agreement, McNemar's and two-sample proportion tests were used to compare results obtained by the photographic and replication methods with those obtained by the direct examination method. RESULTS: Of the 110 invited children, 90 were photographed and 73 had impressions taken. The photographic method had higher reliability levels than the other two methods, and compared to the direct clinical examination detected significantly more subjects with DDE (P = 0.002), 3.1 times more DDE (P < 0.001) and 6.6 times more hypoplastic DDE (P < 0.001). The number of subjects with hypoplastic DDE detected by the replication method was not significantly higher than that detected by direct clinical examination (P = 0.166), but the replication detected 2.3 times more hypoplastic DDE lesions than the direct examination (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The photographic method was much more sensitive than direct clinical examination in detecting DDE and was the best of the three methods for epidemiological studies. The replication method provided less information about DDE compared to photography. Results of this study have implications for both epidemiological and detailed clinical studies on DDE.
format Text
id pubmed-3103494
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31034942011-05-28 A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel Golkari, Ali Sabokseir, Aira Pakshir, Hamid-Reza Dean, M Christopher Sheiham, Aubrey Watt, Richard G BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Different methods have been used for detecting developmental defects of enamel (DDE). This study aimed to compare photographic and replication methods with the direct clinical examination method for detecting DDE in children's permanent incisors. METHODS: 110 8-10-year-old schoolchildren were randomly selected from an examined sample of 335 primary Shiraz school children. Modified DDE index was used in all three methods. Direct examinations were conducted by two calibrated examiners using flat oral mirrors and tongue blades. Photographs were taken using a digital SLR camera (Nikon D-80), macro lens, macro flashes, and matt flash filters. Impressions were taken using additional-curing silicon material and casts made in orthodontic stone. Impressions and models were both assessed using dental loupes (magnification=x3.5). Each photograph/impression/cast was assessed by two calibrated examiners. Reliability of methods was assessed using kappa agreement tests. Kappa agreement, McNemar's and two-sample proportion tests were used to compare results obtained by the photographic and replication methods with those obtained by the direct examination method. RESULTS: Of the 110 invited children, 90 were photographed and 73 had impressions taken. The photographic method had higher reliability levels than the other two methods, and compared to the direct clinical examination detected significantly more subjects with DDE (P = 0.002), 3.1 times more DDE (P < 0.001) and 6.6 times more hypoplastic DDE (P < 0.001). The number of subjects with hypoplastic DDE detected by the replication method was not significantly higher than that detected by direct clinical examination (P = 0.166), but the replication detected 2.3 times more hypoplastic DDE lesions than the direct examination (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The photographic method was much more sensitive than direct clinical examination in detecting DDE and was the best of the three methods for epidemiological studies. The replication method provided less information about DDE compared to photography. Results of this study have implications for both epidemiological and detailed clinical studies on DDE. BioMed Central 2011-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC3103494/ /pubmed/21510890 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-11-16 Text en Copyright ©2011 Golkari et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Golkari, Ali
Sabokseir, Aira
Pakshir, Hamid-Reza
Dean, M Christopher
Sheiham, Aubrey
Watt, Richard G
A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel
title A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel
title_full A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel
title_fullStr A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel
title_short A comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel
title_sort comparison of photographic, replication and direct clinical examination methods for detecting developmental defects of enamel
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3103494/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21510890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-11-16
work_keys_str_mv AT golkariali acomparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT sabokseiraira acomparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT pakshirhamidreza acomparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT deanmchristopher acomparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT sheihamaubrey acomparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT wattrichardg acomparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT golkariali comparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT sabokseiraira comparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT pakshirhamidreza comparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT deanmchristopher comparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT sheihamaubrey comparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel
AT wattrichardg comparisonofphotographicreplicationanddirectclinicalexaminationmethodsfordetectingdevelopmentaldefectsofenamel