The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Detection of proximal caries using quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital and laser fluorescence: a comparative study

  • Yoon, Hyung-In (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yoo, Min-Jeong (Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University) ;
  • Park, Eun-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University)
  • Received : 2016.12.14
  • Accepted : 2017.03.21
  • Published : 2017.12.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro validity of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) and laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) for assessing proximal caries in extracted premolars, using digital radiography as reference method. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 102 extracted premolars with similar lengths and shapes were used. A single operator conducted all the examinations using three different detection methods (bitewing radiography, QLF-D, and DIAGNOdent). The bitewing x-ray scale, QLF-D fluorescence loss (${\Delta}F$), and DIAGNOdent peak readings were compared and statistically analyzed. RESULTS. Each method showed an excellent reliability. The correlation coefficient between bitewing radiography and QLF-D, DIAGNOdent were -0.644 and 0.448, respectively, while the value between QLF-D and DIAGNOdent was -0.382. The kappa statistics for bitewing radiography and QLF-D had a higher diagnosis consensus than those for bitewing radiography and DIAGNOdent. The QLF-D was moderately to highly accurate (AUC = 0.753 - 0.908), while DIAGNOdent was moderately to less accurate (AUC = 0.622 - 0.784). All detection methods showed statistically significant correlation and high correlation between the bitewing radiography and QLF-D. CONCLUSION. QLF-D was found to be a valid and reliable alternative diagnostic method to digital bitewing radiography for in vitro detection of proximal caries.

Keywords

References

  1. Matalon S, Feuerstein O, Kaffe I. Diagnosis of approximal caries: bite-wing radiology versus the Ultrasound Caries Detector. An in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95:626-31. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2003.164
  2. Murray JJ, Majid ZA. The prevalence and progression of approximal caries in the deciduous dentition in British children. Br Dent J 1978;145:161-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4804135
  3. Arnold WH, Gaengler P, Kalkutschke L. Three-dimensional reconstruction of approximal subsurface caries lesions in deciduous molars. Clin Oral Investig 1998;2:174-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050066
  4. Rayner JA, Southam JC. Pulp changes in deciduous teeth associated with deep carious dentine. J Dent 1979;7:39-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(79)90037-X
  5. Choi SC. About the effect of Bite-wing radiograph's diagnosis. J Korean Dent Assoc 1989;27:688-95.
  6. White SC, Pharoah MJ. Oral radiology: principles and interpretation. 4th ed. St. Louis. Mosby, 2000, p. 272-9.
  7. Kim BI. QLF Concept and Clinical Imprementation. J Korean Dent Assoc 2011;49:443-50.
  8. Kang SM, Min JH, Kim HN, Kim BI, Kim JB, Jeong SH. In vitro quantification of occlusal caries lesion using QLF-D, ICDAS, DIAGNOdent. J Korean Acad Oral Health 2014;38:105-10. https://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2014.38.2.105
  9. Pretty IA. Caries detection and diagnosis: novel technologies. J Dent 2006;34:727-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.06.001
  10. Hibst R, Paulus R. Caries detection by red excited fluorescence: investigations on fluorophores. Caries Res 1999;33:295.
  11. Yang J, Dutra V. Utility of radiology, laser fluorescence, and transillumination. Dent Clin North Am 2005;49:739-52, vi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2005.05.010
  12. Chong MJ, Seow WK, Purdie DM, Cheng E, Wan V. Visualtactile examination compared with conventional radiography, digital radiography, and Diagnodent in the diagnosis of occlusal occult caries in extracted premolars. Pediatr Dent 2003;25:341-9.
  13. Mepparambath R, S Bhat S, K Hegde S, Anjana G, Sunil M, Mathew S. Comparison of proximal caries detection in primary teeth between laser fluorescence and bitewing radiography: An in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7:163-7. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1257
  14. Virajsilp V, Thearmontree A, Aryatawong S, Paiboonwarachat D. Comparison of proximal caries detection in primary teeth between laser fluorescence and bitewing radiography. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:493-9.
  15. Shi XQ, Tranaeus S, Angmar-Mansson B. Comparison of QLF and DIAGNOdent for quantification of smooth surface caries. Caries Res 2001;35:21-6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000047426
  16. Farah RA, Drummond BK, Swain MV, Williams S. elationship between laser fluorescence and enamel hypomineralisation. J Dent 2008;36:915-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.07.012
  17. Kim SH, Lee KH, Kim DE, Park JS. Caries diagnosis by diagnodents laser fluorescence detection in vitro. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent 2000;27:24-31.
  18. Ko HY, Kang SM, Kim HE, Kwon HK, Kim BI. Validation of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) for the detection of approximal caries in vitro. J Dent 2015;43:568-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.010
  19. Lussi A, Hack A, Hug I, Heckenberger H, Megert B, Stich H. Detection of approximal caries with a new laser fluorescence device. Caries Res 2006;40:97-103. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091054
  20. Bussaneli DG, Restrepo M, Boldieri T, Albertoni TH, Santos-Pinto L, Cordeiro RC. Proximal caries lesion detection in primary teeth: does this justify the association of diagnostic methods? Lasers Med Sci 2015;30:2239-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1798-2
  21. Allen MJ, Yen WM. Introduction to measurement theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1979, p. 76-7.
  22. Pitts NB. Systems for grading approximal carious lesions and overlaps diagnosed from bitewing radiographs. Proposals for future standardization. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1984;12:114-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1984.tb01423.x
  23. Mejare I, Grondahl HG, Carlstedt K, Grever AC, Ottosson E. Accuracy at radiography and probing for the diagnosis of proximal caries. Scand J Dent Res 1985;93:178-84.
  24. Eli I, Weiss EI, Tzohar A, Littner MM, Gelernter I, Kaffe I. Interpretation of bitewing radiographs. Part 1. Evaluation of the presence of approximal lesions. J Dent 1996;24:379-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)00111-5
  25. van der Veen MH, de Josselin de Jong E. Application of quantitative light-induced fluorescence for assessing early caries lesions. Monogr Oral Sci 2000;17:144-62.
  26. Buchalla W, Lennon AM, van der Veen MH, Stookey GK. Optimal camera and illumination angulations for detection of interproximal caries using quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Caries Res 2002;36:320-6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000065954
  27. Alwas-Danowska HM, Plasschaert AJ, Suliborski S, Verdonschot EH. Reliability and validity issues of laser fluorescence measurements in occlusal caries diagnosis. J Dent 2002;30:129-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00015-5
  28. Anttonen V, Seppa L, Hausen H. A follow-up study of the use of DIAGNOdent for monitoring fissure caries in children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32:312-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00168.x