Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of two different methods of detecting residual caries

  • Vural, Uzay Koc (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University) ;
  • Kutuk, Zeynep Bilge (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University) ;
  • Ergin, Esra (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University) ;
  • Cakir, Filiz Yalcin (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University) ;
  • Gurgan, Sevil (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University)
  • Received : 2016.06.15
  • Accepted : 2016.11.29
  • Published : 2017.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of the fluorescence-aided caries excavation (FACE) device to detect residual caries by comparing conventional methods in vivo. Materials and Methods: A total of 301 females and 202 males with carious teeth participated in this study. The cavity preparations were done by grade 4 (Group 1, 154 teeth), grade 5 (Group 2, 176 teeth), and postgraduate (Group 3, 173 teeth) students. After caries excavation using a handpiece and hand instruments, the presence of residual caries was evaluated by 2 investigators who were previously calibrated for visual-tactile assessment with and without magnifying glasses and trained in the use of a FACE device. The tooth number, cavity type, and presence or absence of residual caries were recorded. The data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, the Fisher's Exact test, or the McNemar test as appropriate. Kappa statistics was used for calibration. In all tests, the level of significance was set at p = 0.05. Results: Almost half of the cavities prepared were Class II (Class I, 20.9%; Class II, 48.9%; Class III, 20.1%; Class IV, 3.4%; Class V, 6.8%). Higher numbers of cavities left with caries were observed in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3 for all examination methods. Significant differences were found between visual inspection with or without magnifying glasses and inspection with a FACE device for all groups (p < 0.001). More residual caries were detected through inspection with a FACE device (46.5%) than through either visual inspection (31.8%) or inspection with a magnifying glass (37.6%). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the FACE device may be an effective method for the detection of residual caries.

Keywords

References

  1. de Almeida Neves A, Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Current concepts and techniques for caries excavation and adhesion to residual dentin. J Adhes Dent 2011;13:7-22.
  2. Ericson D, Kidd E, McComb D, Mjor I, Noack MJ. Minimally invasive dentistry-concepts and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003;1:59-72.
  3. Krause F, Braun A, Eberhard J, Jepsen S. Laser fluorescence measurements compared to electrical resistance of residual dentine in excavated cavities in vivo. Caries Res 2007;41:135-140. https://doi.org/10.1159/000098047
  4. Neves AA, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Does DIAGNOdent provide a reliable cariesremoval endpoint? J Dent 2011;39:351-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.02.005
  5. Celiberti P, Francescut P, Lussi A. Performance of four dentine excavation methods in deciduous teeth. Caries Res 2006;40:117-123. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091057
  6. Banerjee A, Yasseri M, Munson M. A method for the detection and quantification of bacteria in human carious dentine using fluorescent in situ hybridisation. J Dent 2002;30:359-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00052-0
  7. Ismail AI. Visual and visuo-tactile detection of dental caries. J Dent Res 2004;83(Supplement C):C56-C66. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408301s12
  8. Nadanovsky P, Cohen Carneiro F, Souza de Mello F. Removal of caries using only hand instruments: a comparison of mechanical and chemo-mechanical methods. Caries Res 2001;35:384-389. https://doi.org/10.1159/000047478
  9. Neuhaus KW, Ellwood R, Lussi A, Pitts NB. Traditional lesion detection aids. Monogr Oral Sci 2009;21:42-51.
  10. Lennon AM, Attin T, Martens S, Buchalla W. Fluorescence-aided caries excavation (FACE), caries detector, and conventional caries excavation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2009;31:316-319.
  11. Coulthwaite L, Pretty IA, Smith PW, Higham SM, Verran J. The microbiological origin of fluorescence observed in plaque on dentures during QLF analysis. Caries Res 2006;40:112-116. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091056
  12. Koenig K, Schneckenburger H. Laser-induced autofluorescence for medical diagnosis. J Fluoresc 1994;4:17-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01876650
  13. Lai G, Zhu L, Xu X, Kunzelmann KH. An in vitro comparison of fluorescence-aided caries excavation and conventional excavation by microhardness testing. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:599-605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0999-y
  14. Lai G, Kaisarly D, Xu X, Kunzelmann KH. MicroCTbased comparison between fluorescence-aided caries Detection of residual caries excavation and conventional excavation. Am J Dent 2014;27:12-16.
  15. Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: a micro-CT investigation. J Dent 2011;39:154-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.11.006
  16. Zhang X, Tu R, Yin W, Zhou X, Li X, Hu D. Microcomputerized tomography assessment of fluorescence aided caries excavation (FACE) technology: comparison with three other caries removal techniques. Aust Dent J 2013;58:461-467. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12106
  17. Unlu N, Ermis RB, Sener S, Kucukyilmaz E, Cetin AR. An in vitro comparison of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries. Int J Dent 2010;2010:864935.
  18. Meller C, Heyduck C, Tranaeus S, Splieth C. A new in vivo method for measuring caries activity using quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Caries Res 2006;40:90-96. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091053
  19. Ganter P, Al-Ahmad A, Wrbas KT, Hellwig E, Altenburger MJ. The use of computer-assisted FACE for minimalinvasive caries excavation. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:745-751. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1022-3
  20. Lennon AM, Buchalla W, Switalski L, Stookey GK. Residual caries detection using visible fluorescence. Caries Res 2002;36:315-319. https://doi.org/10.1159/000065956
  21. Lennon AM, Attin T, Buchalla W. Quantity of remaining bacteria and cavity size after excavation with FACE, caries detector dye and conventional excavation in vitro. Oper Dent 2007;32:236-241. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-64
  22. Lennon AM, Buchalla W, Rassner B, Becker K, Attin T. Efficiency of 4 caries excavation methods compared. Oper Dent 2006;31:551-555. https://doi.org/10.2341/05-92
  23. Peskersoy C, Turkun M, Onal B. Comparative clinical evaluation of the efficacy of a new method for caries diagnosis and excavation. J Conserv Dent 2015;18:364-368. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.164032
  24. Narula K, Kundabala M, Shetty N, Shenoy R. Evaluation of tooth preparations for Class II cavities using magnification loupes among dental interns and final year BDS students in preclinical laboratory. J Conserv Dent 2015;18:284-287. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.159724
  25. Maggio MP, Villegas H, Blatz MB. The effect of magnification loupes on the performance of preclinical dental students. Quintessence Int 2011;42:45-55.
  26. Farook SA, Stokes RJ, Davis AK, Sneddon K, Collyer J. Use of dental loupes among dental trainers and trainees in the UK. J Investig Clin Dent 2013;4:120-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12002
  27. Zaugg B, Stassinakis A, Hotz P. Influence of magnification tools on the recognition of simulated preparation and filling errors. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2004;114:890-896.