Cargando…

Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Detection of approximal caries may be difficult using conventional methods including visual inspection (VI) and radiography. The purpose of this in vitro research was to evaluate the efficiency of light-emitting diode (LED) and laser fluorescence (LF) devices, and radiographic an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bozdemir, Esin, Aktan, Ali Murat, Ozsevik, Abdulsemih, Sirin Kararslan, Emine, Ciftci, Mehmet Ertuğrul, Cebe, Mehmet Ata
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6395263/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30894987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2016.03.005
_version_ 1783399056664428544
author Bozdemir, Esin
Aktan, Ali Murat
Ozsevik, Abdulsemih
Sirin Kararslan, Emine
Ciftci, Mehmet Ertuğrul
Cebe, Mehmet Ata
author_facet Bozdemir, Esin
Aktan, Ali Murat
Ozsevik, Abdulsemih
Sirin Kararslan, Emine
Ciftci, Mehmet Ertuğrul
Cebe, Mehmet Ata
author_sort Bozdemir, Esin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Detection of approximal caries may be difficult using conventional methods including visual inspection (VI) and radiography. The purpose of this in vitro research was to evaluate the efficiency of light-emitting diode (LED) and laser fluorescence (LF) devices, and radiographic and visual examination in approximal caries diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six approximal regions were evaluated. All approximal regions were investigated using LED and LF tools after radiography and VI were performed. Histological evaluation of teeth was performed using stereomicroscopy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and accuracy, specificity, sensitivity values calculated regarding approximal caries diagnose. RESULTS: The specificity of the bitewing examination was higher for both T1 and T2 thresholds (0.97 and 0.99, respectively), and the LF device showed better sensitivity at each threshold compared with the other devices used for caries diagnosis (0.94 at T1 and 0.79 at T2). The receiver operating characteristic curves presented that the LF device was more successful than the other techniques at T1 threshold and VI was better than the other caries detection methods at T2 threshold. The kappa values for interobserver agreements were 0.43 (LF pen), 0.33 (LED device), 0.55 (VI), and 0.75 (bitewing examination). CONCLUSION: The ability of bitewing radiography to identify sound surfaces was better than that of the other methods. The LF device was the most sensitive tool for detecting approximal surfaces with caries, followed by the LED device.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6395263
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63952632019-03-20 Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection Bozdemir, Esin Aktan, Ali Murat Ozsevik, Abdulsemih Sirin Kararslan, Emine Ciftci, Mehmet Ertuğrul Cebe, Mehmet Ata J Dent Sci Original Article BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Detection of approximal caries may be difficult using conventional methods including visual inspection (VI) and radiography. The purpose of this in vitro research was to evaluate the efficiency of light-emitting diode (LED) and laser fluorescence (LF) devices, and radiographic and visual examination in approximal caries diagnosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six approximal regions were evaluated. All approximal regions were investigated using LED and LF tools after radiography and VI were performed. Histological evaluation of teeth was performed using stereomicroscopy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and accuracy, specificity, sensitivity values calculated regarding approximal caries diagnose. RESULTS: The specificity of the bitewing examination was higher for both T1 and T2 thresholds (0.97 and 0.99, respectively), and the LF device showed better sensitivity at each threshold compared with the other devices used for caries diagnosis (0.94 at T1 and 0.79 at T2). The receiver operating characteristic curves presented that the LF device was more successful than the other techniques at T1 threshold and VI was better than the other caries detection methods at T2 threshold. The kappa values for interobserver agreements were 0.43 (LF pen), 0.33 (LED device), 0.55 (VI), and 0.75 (bitewing examination). CONCLUSION: The ability of bitewing radiography to identify sound surfaces was better than that of the other methods. The LF device was the most sensitive tool for detecting approximal surfaces with caries, followed by the LED device. Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China 2016-09 2016-04-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6395263/ /pubmed/30894987 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2016.03.005 Text en Copyright © 2016, Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Bozdemir, Esin
Aktan, Ali Murat
Ozsevik, Abdulsemih
Sirin Kararslan, Emine
Ciftci, Mehmet Ertuğrul
Cebe, Mehmet Ata
Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection
title Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection
title_full Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection
title_fullStr Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection
title_short Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection
title_sort comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6395263/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30894987
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2016.03.005
work_keys_str_mv AT bozdemiresin comparisonofdifferentcariesdetectorsforapproximalcariesdetection
AT aktanalimurat comparisonofdifferentcariesdetectorsforapproximalcariesdetection
AT ozsevikabdulsemih comparisonofdifferentcariesdetectorsforapproximalcariesdetection
AT sirinkararslanemine comparisonofdifferentcariesdetectorsforapproximalcariesdetection
AT ciftcimehmetertugrul comparisonofdifferentcariesdetectorsforapproximalcariesdetection
AT cebemehmetata comparisonofdifferentcariesdetectorsforapproximalcariesdetection