Aya Mohamed Adly, Shereen Hafez Ibrahim, Amira Farid El-Zoghbi
{"title":"荧光装置与视觉触觉法检测树脂复合修复体周围继发性龋的临床有效性：诊断准确性研究。","authors":"Aya Mohamed Adly, Shereen Hafez Ibrahim, Amira Farid El-Zoghbi","doi":"10.1038/s41405-024-00284-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the validity of light-induced and laser-induced fluorescence devices compared to the visual-tactile method for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study included 20 participants with 30 resin-composite restored teeth. Restorations' margins were examined using three diagnostic methods: the visual-tactile method (FDI criteria), the light-induced fluorescence camera (VistaCam iX), and the laser-induced fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent pen), and the reference was visual inspection after removal of defective restorations. The validity of each method was evaluated. Inter-examiner reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa statistics. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DIAGNOdent pen showed the highest sensitivity (100%) followed by VistaCam (98.82%) and the visual-tactile method (98.82%) at the enamel threshold. DIAGNOdent pen and VistaCam had lower specificity values than the visual-tactile method (81.69%, 76.06%, and 88.73% respectively). At the dentin threshold, DIAGNOdent pen yielded the highest sensitivity (89.36%), whereas VistaCam had the lowest (8.51%). The sensitivity of the visual-tactile method was low (57.45%) whereas all diagnostic methods had high specificity. There was perfect agreement in inter-examiner reliability for all assessment methods (Kappa 0.858-0.992).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both fluorescence-based devices and the visual-tactile method are reliable for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. DIAGNOdent pen is accurate in enamel and dentin, while VistaCam and the visual-tactile method can detect secondary caries in enamel only.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Fluorescence-based devices could be used as a valuable aid to supplement or as a second opinion after the visual-tactile method.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was listed on www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov with registration number (NCT04426604) on 11/06/2020.</p>","PeriodicalId":36997,"journal":{"name":"BDJ Open","volume":"11 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704249/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study.\",\"authors\":\"Aya Mohamed Adly, Shereen Hafez Ibrahim, Amira Farid El-Zoghbi\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41405-024-00284-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the validity of light-induced and laser-induced fluorescence devices compared to the visual-tactile method for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study included 20 participants with 30 resin-composite restored teeth. Restorations' margins were examined using three diagnostic methods: the visual-tactile method (FDI criteria), the light-induced fluorescence camera (VistaCam iX), and the laser-induced fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent pen), and the reference was visual inspection after removal of defective restorations. The validity of each method was evaluated. Inter-examiner reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa statistics. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DIAGNOdent pen showed the highest sensitivity (100%) followed by VistaCam (98.82%) and the visual-tactile method (98.82%) at the enamel threshold. DIAGNOdent pen and VistaCam had lower specificity values than the visual-tactile method (81.69%, 76.06%, and 88.73% respectively). At the dentin threshold, DIAGNOdent pen yielded the highest sensitivity (89.36%), whereas VistaCam had the lowest (8.51%). The sensitivity of the visual-tactile method was low (57.45%) whereas all diagnostic methods had high specificity. There was perfect agreement in inter-examiner reliability for all assessment methods (Kappa 0.858-0.992).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both fluorescence-based devices and the visual-tactile method are reliable for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. DIAGNOdent pen is accurate in enamel and dentin, while VistaCam and the visual-tactile method can detect secondary caries in enamel only.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Fluorescence-based devices could be used as a valuable aid to supplement or as a second opinion after the visual-tactile method.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The study was listed on www.</p><p><strong>Clinicaltrials: </strong>gov with registration number (NCT04426604) on 11/06/2020.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BDJ Open\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704249/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BDJ Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-024-00284-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BDJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-024-00284-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study.
Objectives: To assess the validity of light-induced and laser-induced fluorescence devices compared to the visual-tactile method for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations.
Materials and methods: The study included 20 participants with 30 resin-composite restored teeth. Restorations' margins were examined using three diagnostic methods: the visual-tactile method (FDI criteria), the light-induced fluorescence camera (VistaCam iX), and the laser-induced fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent pen), and the reference was visual inspection after removal of defective restorations. The validity of each method was evaluated. Inter-examiner reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa statistics. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05.
Results: DIAGNOdent pen showed the highest sensitivity (100%) followed by VistaCam (98.82%) and the visual-tactile method (98.82%) at the enamel threshold. DIAGNOdent pen and VistaCam had lower specificity values than the visual-tactile method (81.69%, 76.06%, and 88.73% respectively). At the dentin threshold, DIAGNOdent pen yielded the highest sensitivity (89.36%), whereas VistaCam had the lowest (8.51%). The sensitivity of the visual-tactile method was low (57.45%) whereas all diagnostic methods had high specificity. There was perfect agreement in inter-examiner reliability for all assessment methods (Kappa 0.858-0.992).
Conclusions: Both fluorescence-based devices and the visual-tactile method are reliable for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. DIAGNOdent pen is accurate in enamel and dentin, while VistaCam and the visual-tactile method can detect secondary caries in enamel only.
Clinical relevance: Fluorescence-based devices could be used as a valuable aid to supplement or as a second opinion after the visual-tactile method.
Trial registration: The study was listed on www.
Clinicaltrials: gov with registration number (NCT04426604) on 11/06/2020.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
