Generational shift for clinical application of the QLF system for evaluating tooth wear.

Sang-Kyeom Kim, Eun-Song Lee, Baek-Il Kim
{"title":"Generational shift for clinical application of the QLF system for evaluating tooth wear.","authors":"Sang-Kyeom Kim, Eun-Song Lee, Baek-Il Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.104413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>No study has quantitatively assessed tooth wear using a clinical quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) system. This study aimed to compare fluorescence parameters (ΔF<sub>wear</sub>) between the research QLF system (QLF-D) and clinical QLF system (Qraycam Pro) and evaluate the validity of both systems in detecting dentin exposure from tooth wear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-five human molars and premolars were collected. Two blinded examiners conducted evaluations. Images from QLF-D and Qraycam Pro were captured and analyzed by the first examiner to calculate ΔF<sub>wear</sub>, representing the maximum fluorescence intensity for occlusal wear. The stage of tooth wear was determined by the second examiner using the tooth wear index (TWI). The area of interest (AOI) was determined as the cusp without defects, such as caries or fractures. Only areas mutually agreed by both examiners were included in analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to assess differences in ΔF<sub>wear</sub> between two devices. ROC analysis evaluated the validity of both systems in determining dentin exposure using AUROC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight AOIs were analyzed. ΔF<sub>wear</sub> significantly increased with higher TWI scores. Median ΔF<sub>wear</sub> for TWI scores (0, 1, and 2) were 6.9%, 10.3%, and 24.8%, respectively, for QLF-D, and 5.7%, 7.7%, and 23.9%, respectively, for Qraycam Pro. No significant differences in ΔF<sub>wear</sub> were observed between QLF-D and Qraycam Pro for any TWI score. The AUROC for both systems was 0.95.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ΔF<sub>wear</sub> was comparable between QLF-D and Qraycam Pro and demonstrated high validity in detecting dentin exposure. These findings support the clinical application of the QLF for quantitative tooth wear assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":94170,"journal":{"name":"Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy","volume":" ","pages":"104413"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2024.104413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: No study has quantitatively assessed tooth wear using a clinical quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) system. This study aimed to compare fluorescence parameters (ΔFwear) between the research QLF system (QLF-D) and clinical QLF system (Qraycam Pro) and evaluate the validity of both systems in detecting dentin exposure from tooth wear.

Methods: Thirty-five human molars and premolars were collected. Two blinded examiners conducted evaluations. Images from QLF-D and Qraycam Pro were captured and analyzed by the first examiner to calculate ΔFwear, representing the maximum fluorescence intensity for occlusal wear. The stage of tooth wear was determined by the second examiner using the tooth wear index (TWI). The area of interest (AOI) was determined as the cusp without defects, such as caries or fractures. Only areas mutually agreed by both examiners were included in analysis. The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to assess differences in ΔFwear between two devices. ROC analysis evaluated the validity of both systems in determining dentin exposure using AUROC.

Results: Thirty-eight AOIs were analyzed. ΔFwear significantly increased with higher TWI scores. Median ΔFwear for TWI scores (0, 1, and 2) were 6.9%, 10.3%, and 24.8%, respectively, for QLF-D, and 5.7%, 7.7%, and 23.9%, respectively, for Qraycam Pro. No significant differences in ΔFwear were observed between QLF-D and Qraycam Pro for any TWI score. The AUROC for both systems was 0.95.

Conclusion: ΔFwear was comparable between QLF-D and Qraycam Pro and demonstrated high validity in detecting dentin exposure. These findings support the clinical application of the QLF for quantitative tooth wear assessment.

用于评估牙齿磨损的 QLF 系统临床应用的世代交替。
背景:目前还没有研究使用临床定量光诱导荧光(QLF)系统对牙齿磨损进行定量评估。本研究旨在比较研究用 QLF 系统(QLF-D)和临床用 QLF 系统(Qraycam Pro)的荧光参数(ΔFwear),并评估这两种系统在检测牙齿磨损造成的牙本质暴露方面的有效性:收集了 35 颗人类臼齿和前臼齿。方法:收集 35 颗人类臼齿和前臼齿,由两名盲人检查员进行评估。第一位检查者采集并分析 QLF-D 和 Qraycam Pro 的图像,计算出代表咬合磨损最大荧光强度的 ΔFwear。第二位检查员使用牙齿磨损指数 (TWI) 确定牙齿磨损的阶段。感兴趣区 (AOI) 是指没有龋齿或骨折等缺陷的尖牙。分析中只包括两位检查员共同认可的区域。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验来评估两种设备之间 ΔFwear 的差异。ROC分析使用AUROC评估了两种系统在确定牙本质暴露方面的有效性:结果:分析了 38 个 AOI。TWI 分数越高,ΔFwear 明显增加。对于 QLF-D,TWI 分数(0、1 和 2)的ΔFwear 中值分别为 6.9%、10.3% 和 24.8%;对于 Qraycam Pro,ΔFwear 中值分别为 5.7%、7.7% 和 23.9%。在任何 TWI 分数上,QLF-D 和 Qraycam Pro 的 ΔFwear 均无明显差异。结论:QLF-D 和 Qraycam Pro 的 ΔFwear 具有可比性,在检测牙本质暴露方面具有很高的有效性。这些研究结果支持临床应用 QLF 对牙齿磨损进行定量评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信