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

2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nimet Unlu ◽  
Rabia Banu Ermis ◽  
Sevgi Sener ◽  
Ebru Kucukyilmaz ◽  
Ali Riza Cetin
Keyword(s):  
Excellent Agreement ◽  
Repeated Measurements ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Perfect Agreement ◽  
Average Accuracy ◽  
Residual Caries ◽  
Good Agreement

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.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Peycheva ◽  
E. Boteva
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
The Body ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Caries Lesion ◽  
Occlusal Surfaces ◽  
Icdas Ii ◽  
Permanent Molars

Summary The aim of the study is to compare the diagnostic capabilities of three different diagnostic methods: Quantitative Laser Fluorescence (QLF) − DIAGNOdent Classic (DD), Light-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) − SoproLife daylight and blue fluorescence, and their relevance to ICDAS II system in detection of fissure caries lesions in permanent molars. Permanent molars (n = 45) are divided in two groups: 1) third molars, n = 35; 2) first and second molars, n = 10. They are examined by 2 examiners with and without magnification x5 using ICDAS II, SoproLife “day light” and “blue light” (405nm), LIF, DIAGNOdent Classic − emitting laser light on 655nm, QLF. The results are proven with histological bucco-lingual or mesio-distal sections through the body of the lesion with diamond blade rinsed with water. Photos of all occlusal surfaces of the molars are taken before and after the sections. The lowest overdiagnosis rate is found with SoproLife camera. When visual examination is applied overdiagnoses are fewer than with DD. DD is not capable to differentiate white and brown spots from a caries lesion. Soprolife is not capable to differentiate brown spots from a caries lesion. The most accurate method in this in vitro study for diagnosis of fissure caries is LIF (SoproLife) − 75.6% of the teeth are correctly diagnosed, followed by ICDAS (57.8%) and QLF (DIAGNOdent) (40%).

scholarly journals Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svetlana Kapor ◽  
Mila Janjic Rankovic ◽  
Yegane Khazaei ◽  
Alexander Crispin ◽  
Ina Schüler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Detection Level ◽  
Dentin Caries

Abstract Aim This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of commonly used methods for occlusal caries diagnostics, such as visual examination (VE), bitewing radiography (BW) and laser fluorescence (LF), in relation to their ability to detect (dentin) caries under clinical and laboratory conditions. Materials and methods A systematic search of the literature was performed to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria using the PIRDS concept (N = 1090). A risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool was used for quality evaluation. Reports with low/moderate RoB, well-matching thresholds for index and reference tests and appropriate reporting were included in the meta-analysis (N = 37; 29 in vivo/8 in vitro). The pooled sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and areas under ROC curves (AUCs) were computed. Results SP ranged from 0.50 (fibre-optic transillumination/caries detection level) to 0.97 (conventional BW/dentine detection level) in vitro. AUCs were typically higher for BW or LF than for VE. The highest AUC of 0.89 was observed for VE at the 1/3 dentin caries detection level; SE (0.70) was registered to be higher than SP (0.47) for VE at the caries detection level in vivo. Conclusion The number of included studies was found to be low. This underlines the need for high-quality caries diagnostic studies that further provide data in relation to multiple caries thresholds. Clinical relevance VE, BW and LF provide acceptable measures for their diagnostic performance on occlusal surfaces, but the results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited data in many categories.

scholarly journals Performance of Laser Fluorescence for Residual Caries Detection in Primary Teeth

2008 ◽  
Vol 02 (03) ◽  
pp. 176-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taskin Gurbuz ◽  
Yucel Yilmaz ◽  
Fatih Sengul
Keyword(s):  
Light Microscopy ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Polarized Light ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Sem Images ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Residual Caries ◽  
Cavity Floor

ABSTRACTObjectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a visual-tactile examination and a laser fluorescence device for detecting residual dentinal caries after carious dentin removal with bur excavation, hand excavation and chemomechanical excavation (Carisolv™].Methods: Thirty extracted coronal caries primary second molars were used. The caries infected dentin has been removed. A blinded examiner checked all cavities for residual caries using a visualtactile examination and laser fluorescence. Then the teeth were sectioned through the prepared cavities andthe two halves of each tooth were processed for light microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The presence or absence of residual caries was verified using polarized light microscopy as the gold standard. The cavity floor dentin after removing carious dentin was examined using SEM.Results: In among all groups a significant difference is determined between visual-tactile examination and laser fluorescence (P<.05). There was an agreement between laser fluorescence or visual-tactile examination and histological gold standard (P>.05). In addition, SEM images of the surfaces with the caries removed have shown that a vast majority of the tubule openings is observed to be open in the samples of the Carisolv group in opposition to the other groups.Conclusions: The laser fluorescence system could be effective in checking the removal by other methods, such as bur or Carisolv and avoid excessive removal of the sound dentin. (Eur J Dent 2008;2:176-184)

In vitro study of caries detection through sound dentin using a laser fluorescence device, DIAGNOdent

2003 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yukiteru Iwami ◽  
Ayako Shimizu ◽  
Hiroko Yamamoto ◽  
Mikako Hayashi ◽  
Fumio Takeshige ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Caries Detection

Laser fluorescence of caries detection in permanent teeth in vitro: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria I Rosa ◽  
Vilson S Schambeck ◽  
Eduardo R Dondossola ◽  
Maria CM Alexandre ◽  
Lisiane Tuon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Permanent Teeth

scholarly journals A Comparative Evaluation of DIAGNOdent and Caries Detector Dye in Detection of Residual Caries in Prepared Cavities

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Majid Akbari ◽  
Farzaneh Ahrari ◽  
Marzieh Jafari
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Dental School ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Restorative Dentistry ◽  
Mcnemar Test ◽  
Diagnodent Pen ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Residual Caries ◽  
Tooth Tissue

ABSTRACT Aim The objective of this study was to determine the association between DIAGNOdent laser and caries detector dye in detection of the remaining caries in restorative cavities. Materials and methods The sample consisted of 100 cavities prepared in patients referring to the Department of Restorative Dentistry of Mashhad Dental School. After confirming caries absence by tactile examination, the presence of any residual caries was determined by a laser fluorescence (LF) device (DIAGNOdent Pen) and then by caries detector dye. The data were analyzed through McNemar test. Results When the cut off value was considered as ≥13, both DIAGNOdent Pen and caries detector dye found 54 cavities as without caries and 12 cavities as carious. There were 32 teeth diagnosed as decayed only by the dye and two cases that were diagnosed as having residual caries only by the DIAGNOdent. The McNemar test revealed a significant difference in the diagnosis of residual caries between the two methods (p < 0.05), as well as significant differences between each method and tactile examination (p < 0.05). When the cut off value was set at ≥25, no significant difference was found between laser fluorescence and tactile examination in residual caries detection (p > 0.05). Conclusion Both DIAGNOdent Pen and caries detector dye can be considered as adjuncts for detecting residual caries in prepared cavities. However, the use of laser fluorescence device can provide results that are more consistent with tactile examination, while relying on caries detector dye may result in excessive removal of tooth tissue, and thus increase the risk of pulpal exposure. Clinical significance Incomparision with caries detector dye, Residual caries detection by DIAGNOdent Pen is more consistent with tactile examination. How to cite this article Akbari M, Ahrari F, Jafari M. A Comparative Evaluation of DIAGNOdent and Caries Detector Dye in Detection of Residual Caries in Prepared Cavities. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(4):515-520.

scholarly journals Aplicação do Laser na Cariologia: diagnóstico, prevenção e tratamento

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Luzia Araújo Batista ◽  
Thamyres Maria Silva Simões ◽  
Maria das Graças Barbosa da Silva ◽  
Maria Helena Chaves de Vasconcelos Catão
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Laser Irradiation ◽  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Permanent Teeth ◽  
Topical Fluoride

Nas últimas décadas, um dos grandes avanços na Área da Saúde foi o desenvolvimento dos aparelhos de Laser, que possibilitou uma nova abordagem nos procedimentos odontológicos. A Laserterapia tem diversas aplicabilidades na Cariologia, seja como método de diagnóstico, como auxiliar nas medidas preventivas ou como tratamento da cárie dentária. Portanto, o objetivo desta revisão é proporcionar uma leitura atualizada da aplicabilidade da Laserterapia na Cariologia e, para tanto, foi realizada uma revisão literária sistematizada, na base de dados MEDLINE – Pubmed, abrangendo os últimos anos. Mediante esse estudo literário e considerando a evolução dos estudos científicos, ainda existem controvérsias a respeito da eficácia clínica do Laser na Cariologia.Descritores: Lasers; Cárie Dentária; Flúor.ReferênciasSichani AV, Javadinejad S, Ghafari R. Diagnostic value of DIAGNOdent in detecting caries under composite restorations of primary molars. Dent Res J. 2016;13(4):327-32.Montedori A, Abraha I, Orso M, D'errico PG, Pagano S, Lombardo G. Lasers for caries removal in deciduous and permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;26(9):CD010229.Nagata JY, Hioka N, Kimura E, Batistela VR, Terada RS, Graciano AX et al. Antibacterial photodynamic therapy for dental caries: evaluation of the photosensitizers used and light source properties. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2012;9(2):122-31.Bahrololoomi Z, Fotuhi  Ardakani F, Sorouri M. In vitro comparison of the effects of diode laser and co2 laser on topical fluoride uptake in primary teeth. J Dent (Tehran). 2015;12(8):585-91.Nokhbatolfoghahaie H, Alikhasi M, Chiniforush N, Khoei F, Safavi N, Yaghoub Zadeh B. Evaluation of Accuracy of DIAGNOdent in Diagnosis of Primary and Secondary Caries in Comparison to Conventional Methods. J Lasers Med Sci. 2013; 4(4):159-67.Melo M, Pascual A, Camps I, Del Campo Á, Ata-Ali J. Caries diagnosis using light fluorescence devices in comparison with traditional visual and tactile evaluation: a prospective study in 152 patients. Odontology. 2017;105(3):283-90.Gimenez T, Braga MM, Raggio DP, Deery C, Ricketts DN, Mendes FM. Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60421.Kositbowornchai S, Sukanya C, Tidarat T, Chanoggarn T. Caries detection under composite restorations by laser fluorescence and digital radiography. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17(9):2079-84.Rosa MI, Schambeck VS, Dondossola ER, Alexandre MC, Tuon L, Grande AJ, Hugo F. Laser fluorescence of caries detection in permanent teeth in vitro: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Med. 2016;  9(4):213-24.Heravi F, Ahrari F, Mahdavi M, Basafa S. Comparative evaluation of the effect of Er:YAG laser and low level laser irradiation combined with CPP-ACPF cream on treatment of enamel caries. J Clin Exp Dent. 2014;6(2):e121-26.Mang TS, Tayal DP, Baier R. Photodynamic therapy as an alternative treatment for disinfection of bacteria in oral biofilms. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44(7):588-96.Fornaini C, Brulat N, Milia G, Rockl A, Rocca JP. The use of sub-ablative Er:YAG laser irradiation in  prevention of dental caries during orthodontic treatment. Laser Ther. 2014;23(3):173-81.Karandish M. The efficiency of laser application on the enamel surface: a systematic review. J Lasers Med Sci. 2014;5(3):108-14.Twetman S, Axelsson S, Dahlén G, Espelid I, Mejàre I, Norlund A et al. Adjunct methods for caries detection: a systematic review of literature. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3-4):388-97.Bahrololoomi Z, Lotfian M. Effect of diode laser irradiation combined with topical fluoride on enamel microhardness of primary teeth. J Dent (Tehran). 2015;12(2):85-9.Ramos-Oliveira TM, Ramos TM, Esteves-Oliveira M, Apel C, Fischer H, Eduardo CP et al. Potential of CO2 lasers (10.6 µm) associated with fluorides in inhibiting human enamel erosion. Braz Oral Res. 2014;28(1):1-6.Souza-Gabriel AE, Turssi CP, Colucci V, Tenuta LM, Serra MC, Corona SA. In situ study of the anticariogenic potential of fluoride varnish combined with CO2 laser on enamel. Arch Oral Biol. 2015;60(6):804-10.

scholarly journals Comparison of novel and established caries diagnostic methods: a clinical study on occlusal surfaces

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Friederike Litzenburger ◽  
Gerrit Schäfer ◽  
Reinhard Hickel ◽  
Jan Kühnisch ◽  
Katrin Heck
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Performance ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
The Other ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Occlusal Caries ◽  
Enamel Caries ◽  
Dentin Caries ◽  
Occlusal Caries Detection

Abstract Background The purpose of this prospective clinical diagnostic study with validation was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of near-infrared transillumination (NIRT), laser fluorescence measurement (LF), alternating current impedance spectroscopy (ACIS) and their combinations as adjunct methods to visual examination (VE) for occlusal caries detection using a hybrid reference standard. Methods Ninety-six first and second non-cavitated permanent molars from 76 individuals (mean age 24.2) were investigated using (VE) (ICDAS) and bitewing radiography (BWR), as well as NIRT, LF and ACIS. The findings of BWR and NIRT were evaluated by two examiners while the other examinations were conducted by one calibrated dentist. The hybrid reference standard consisted of non-operative validation based on the results of VE and BWR and operative validation. Statistical analysis included cross-tabulations, calculation of sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve at three diagnostic thresholds: caries in general, enamel caries and dentin caries. Results NIRT, LF and ACIS exhibited high sensitivity for caries in general [1.00 (1.00–1.00), 0.77 (0.65–0.88), 0.75 (0.63–0.87)) and for dentin caries (0.97 (0.91–1.03), 0.76 (0.76–0.90), 0.64 (0.47–0.80)]. Sensitivity values for enamel caries were weak (0.21, 0.11, 0.37). Specificity values did not fall below 0.65 (NIRT) for all categories and methods, except for NIRT at the caries detection threshold (0.27). A combination of LF and ACIS with VE improved the diagnostic performance at the overall and the enamel caries threshold. The other methods showed fair to excellent discrimination at the overall caries threshold (NIRT 0.64, LF 0.89 and ACIS 0.86) and acceptable discrimination at the dentin caries threshold (NIRT 0.82, LF 0.81 and ACIS 0.79). AUROC for enamel caries exhibited the weakest discrimination. Accuracy was 65.6% for VE, 69.8% for BWR, 50.0% for NIRT, 53.1% for LF and 74.0% for ACIS. Reliability assessment for BWR and NIRT showed at least substantial agreements for all analyses. Conclusions The methods, NIRT, LF and ACIS, revealed different potential but no impeccable performance for occlusal caries detection. All are suitable instruments to detect hidden carious lesion in dentin. As auxiliaries to VE, LF and ACIS showed an increase in diagnostic performance.

scholarly journals Detection of Caries Around Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer and Compomer Restorations Using Four Different Modalities In Vitro

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Abrams ◽  
Stephen Abrams ◽  
Koneswaran Sivagurunathan ◽  
Veronika Moravan ◽  
Warren Hellen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Assessment System ◽  
Laser Fluorescence ◽  
Caries Detection ◽  
Signal Interference ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Icdas Ii ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Tooth Surfaces ◽  
Natural Decay

The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of visual examination (International Caries Detection and Assessment System—ICDAS II), light-emitting diodes (LED) fluorescence (SPECTRA), laser fluorescence (DIAGNODent, DD), photothermal radiometry and modulated luminescence (PTR-LUM, The Canary System, CS) to detect natural decay beneath resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) and compomer restorations in vitro. Twenty-seven extracted human molars and premolars, consisting of 2 control teeth, 10 visually healthy/sound and 15 teeth with natural cavitated lesions, were selected. For the carious teeth, caries was removed leaving some carious tissue on one wall of the preparation. For the sound teeth, 3 mm deep cavity preparations were made. All cavities were restored with RMGIC or compomer restorative materials. Sixty-eight sites (4 sites on sound unrestored teeth, 21 sound sites and 43 carious sites with restorations) were selected. CS and DD triplicate measurements were done at 2, 1.5, 0.5, and 0 mm away from the margin of the restoration (MOR). SPECTRA images were taken, and two dentists provided ICDAS II scoring for the restored surfaces. The SPECTRA data and images were inconclusive due to signal interference from the restorations. Visual examinations of the restored tooth surfaces were able to identify 5 of the 15 teeth with caries. In these situations, the teeth were ranked as having ICDAS II 1 or 2 rankings, but they could not identify the location of the caries or depth of the lesion. CS and DD were able to differentiate between sound and carious tissue at the MOR, but larger variation in measurement, and poorer accuracy, was observed for DD. It was concluded that the CS has the potential to detect secondary caries around RMGIC and compomer restorations more accurately than the other modalities used in this study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document