Cargando…

DIAGNOdent Pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study

The objective of this study is to compare the performance of the DIAGNOdent laser fluorescence (LF) Pen to conventional periodontal probing for detection of subgingival calculus under defined laboratory conditions. Extracted teeth with various levels of subgingival deposits of calculus were mounted...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shakibaie, Fardad, Walsh, Laurence J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5839182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29744137
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.5
_version_ 1783304369481973760
author Shakibaie, Fardad
Walsh, Laurence J
author_facet Shakibaie, Fardad
Walsh, Laurence J
author_sort Shakibaie, Fardad
collection PubMed
description The objective of this study is to compare the performance of the DIAGNOdent laser fluorescence (LF) Pen to conventional periodontal probing for detection of subgingival calculus under defined laboratory conditions. Extracted teeth with various levels of subgingival deposits of calculus were mounted anatomically in stone casts, and an impression material was used to replicate periodontal soft tissues. The casts were examined for the presence of subgingival calculus at eight surfaces per tooth (240 sites) using LF and a periodontal probe. Sites were rescored after 1 and 3 weeks. Direct imaging of the root surfaces under magnification was the gold standard. As a result, for an experienced operator, LF was more accurate than tactile assessment (across all sites, 84.0% vs. 59.8%). The performance difference was greater for multi‐rooted teeth (85.8% vs. 56.9%) than single‐rooted teeth (77.2% vs. 66.7%). The performance of LF in this laboratory trial was influenced strongly by clinician skill and experience. When used by an experienced operator, LF was more sensitive (75.1% vs. 69.2%), specific (92.6% vs. 86.3%), and accurate (84% vs. 77.9%) than for an inexperienced operator. In conclusion, under the defined laboratory conditions used, LF had better performance than tactile examination, particularly for multi‐rooted teeth. This method may have value clinically as an adjunct for detecting subgingival deposits of calculus in clinical practice. The usefulness of the method improves with operator experience.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5839182
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58391822018-05-09 DIAGNOdent Pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study Shakibaie, Fardad Walsh, Laurence J Clin Exp Dent Res Original Articles The objective of this study is to compare the performance of the DIAGNOdent laser fluorescence (LF) Pen to conventional periodontal probing for detection of subgingival calculus under defined laboratory conditions. Extracted teeth with various levels of subgingival deposits of calculus were mounted anatomically in stone casts, and an impression material was used to replicate periodontal soft tissues. The casts were examined for the presence of subgingival calculus at eight surfaces per tooth (240 sites) using LF and a periodontal probe. Sites were rescored after 1 and 3 weeks. Direct imaging of the root surfaces under magnification was the gold standard. As a result, for an experienced operator, LF was more accurate than tactile assessment (across all sites, 84.0% vs. 59.8%). The performance difference was greater for multi‐rooted teeth (85.8% vs. 56.9%) than single‐rooted teeth (77.2% vs. 66.7%). The performance of LF in this laboratory trial was influenced strongly by clinician skill and experience. When used by an experienced operator, LF was more sensitive (75.1% vs. 69.2%), specific (92.6% vs. 86.3%), and accurate (84% vs. 77.9%) than for an inexperienced operator. In conclusion, under the defined laboratory conditions used, LF had better performance than tactile examination, particularly for multi‐rooted teeth. This method may have value clinically as an adjunct for detecting subgingival deposits of calculus in clinical practice. The usefulness of the method improves with operator experience. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015-10-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5839182/ /pubmed/29744137 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.5 Text en ©2015 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Shakibaie, Fardad
Walsh, Laurence J
DIAGNOdent Pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study
title DIAGNOdent Pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study
title_full DIAGNOdent Pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study
title_fullStr DIAGNOdent Pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed DIAGNOdent Pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study
title_short DIAGNOdent Pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study
title_sort diagnodent pen versus tactile sense for detection of subgingival calculus: an in vitro study
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5839182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29744137
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.5
work_keys_str_mv AT shakibaiefardad diagnodentpenversustactilesensefordetectionofsubgingivalcalculusaninvitrostudy
AT walshlaurencej diagnodentpenversustactilesensefordetectionofsubgingivalcalculusaninvitrostudy