N Abogazalah, L Al Dehailan, A-E Soto-Rojas, M Ando, S Martignon, H Eggertsson, D Shone, E-A Martinez-Mier
{"title":"使用口内相机、定量光荧光和目视检查检测和评估牙釉质氟中毒。","authors":"N Abogazalah, L Al Dehailan, A-E Soto-Rojas, M Ando, S Martignon, H Eggertsson, D Shone, E-A Martinez-Mier","doi":"10.2341/24-137-C","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the in vivo and in vitro performance of an intraoral camera (IC), visual examination using the Thylstrup and Fejerskov Index (TFI), and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) to detect and quantify enamel fluorosis (EF).</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Calibrated examiners performed IC-qualitative (ICQual), TFI, IC-quantitative (ICQuant), and QLF (Area, Fluorescence loss [ΔF], and ΔQ: Area×ΔF) on 150 extracted teeth in vitro and 150 children in vivo. Polarized light microscopy (PLM) was the gold standard for the in vitro phase. Cross tabulation, agreement, correlation, comparison of means from quantitative measures, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for TFI, QLF, ICQual, and ICQuant. For the in vivo phase, TFI scores were cross tabulated with ICQuant and ICQual, and Kendall's Tau was used to measure correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Agreements of TFI and ICQual with PLM were 53.77% and 47.17%, respectively. Correlation coefficients for QLF (area, ΔF, ΔQ) and ICQuant with PLM scores were 0.47, 0.56, 0.51, 0.46, respectively. Sensitivity/specificity for TFI, ICQual, ICQuant, and ΔQ were 0.86/0.58, 0.86/0.62, 0.86/0.58, and 1.00/0.13, respectively. For the in vivo phase, correlations of ICQual and ICQuant with TFI were 0.55 and 0.52, respectively. Quantitative measurements of ICQuant by TFI scores showed consistent separation in means, while those for QLF were neither as clear nor as consistent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All methods were able to detect and quantify enamel fluorosis. However, there were consistent and significant differences among them.</p>","PeriodicalId":19502,"journal":{"name":"Operative dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Use of Intraoral Camera, Quantitative Light Fluorescence, and Visual Examinations for the Detection and Assessment of Enamel Fluorosis.\",\"authors\":\"N Abogazalah, L Al Dehailan, A-E Soto-Rojas, M Ando, S Martignon, H Eggertsson, D Shone, E-A Martinez-Mier\",\"doi\":\"10.2341/24-137-C\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the in vivo and in vitro performance of an intraoral camera (IC), visual examination using the Thylstrup and Fejerskov Index (TFI), and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) to detect and quantify enamel fluorosis (EF).</p><p><strong>Methods and materials: </strong>Calibrated examiners performed IC-qualitative (ICQual), TFI, IC-quantitative (ICQuant), and QLF (Area, Fluorescence loss [ΔF], and ΔQ: Area×ΔF) on 150 extracted teeth in vitro and 150 children in vivo. Polarized light microscopy (PLM) was the gold standard for the in vitro phase. Cross tabulation, agreement, correlation, comparison of means from quantitative measures, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for TFI, QLF, ICQual, and ICQuant. For the in vivo phase, TFI scores were cross tabulated with ICQuant and ICQual, and Kendall's Tau was used to measure correlation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Agreements of TFI and ICQual with PLM were 53.77% and 47.17%, respectively. Correlation coefficients for QLF (area, ΔF, ΔQ) and ICQuant with PLM scores were 0.47, 0.56, 0.51, 0.46, respectively. Sensitivity/specificity for TFI, ICQual, ICQuant, and ΔQ were 0.86/0.58, 0.86/0.62, 0.86/0.58, and 1.00/0.13, respectively. For the in vivo phase, correlations of ICQual and ICQuant with TFI were 0.55 and 0.52, respectively. Quantitative measurements of ICQuant by TFI scores showed consistent separation in means, while those for QLF were neither as clear nor as consistent.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All methods were able to detect and quantify enamel fluorosis. However, there were consistent and significant differences among them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19502,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Operative dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Operative dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2341/24-137-C\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Operative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2341/24-137-C","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Use of Intraoral Camera, Quantitative Light Fluorescence, and Visual Examinations for the Detection and Assessment of Enamel Fluorosis.
Purpose: To evaluate the in vivo and in vitro performance of an intraoral camera (IC), visual examination using the Thylstrup and Fejerskov Index (TFI), and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) to detect and quantify enamel fluorosis (EF).
Methods and materials: Calibrated examiners performed IC-qualitative (ICQual), TFI, IC-quantitative (ICQuant), and QLF (Area, Fluorescence loss [ΔF], and ΔQ: Area×ΔF) on 150 extracted teeth in vitro and 150 children in vivo. Polarized light microscopy (PLM) was the gold standard for the in vitro phase. Cross tabulation, agreement, correlation, comparison of means from quantitative measures, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for TFI, QLF, ICQual, and ICQuant. For the in vivo phase, TFI scores were cross tabulated with ICQuant and ICQual, and Kendall's Tau was used to measure correlation.
Results: Agreements of TFI and ICQual with PLM were 53.77% and 47.17%, respectively. Correlation coefficients for QLF (area, ΔF, ΔQ) and ICQuant with PLM scores were 0.47, 0.56, 0.51, 0.46, respectively. Sensitivity/specificity for TFI, ICQual, ICQuant, and ΔQ were 0.86/0.58, 0.86/0.62, 0.86/0.58, and 1.00/0.13, respectively. For the in vivo phase, correlations of ICQual and ICQuant with TFI were 0.55 and 0.52, respectively. Quantitative measurements of ICQuant by TFI scores showed consistent separation in means, while those for QLF were neither as clear nor as consistent.
Conclusion: All methods were able to detect and quantify enamel fluorosis. However, there were consistent and significant differences among them.
期刊介绍:
Operative Dentistry is a refereed, international journal published bi-monthly and distributed to subscribers in over 50 countries. In 2012, we printed 84 articles (672 pages). Papers were submitted by authors from 45 countries, in the categories of Clinical Research, Laboratory Research, Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations and Invited Papers, as well as Editorials and Abstracts.
One of the strong points of our journal is that our current publication time for accepted manuscripts is 4 to 6 months from the date of submission. Clinical Techniques/Case Presentations have a very quick turnaround time, which allows for very rapid publication of clinical based concepts. We also provide color for those papers that would benefit from its use.
The journal does not accept any advertising but you will find postings for faculty positions. Additionally, the journal also does not rent, sell or otherwise allow its subscriber list to be used by any other entity