选择性除龋术中牙洞检测染料与激光荧光系统的比较评价:范围综述。

IF 1.8 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Frontiers in dental medicine Pub Date : 2025-07-16 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdmed.2025.1600500
Ana Iglesias-Poveda, Javier Flores-Fraile, Diego González-Gil, Joaquín López-Marcos
{"title":"选择性除龋术中牙洞检测染料与激光荧光系统的比较评价:范围综述。","authors":"Ana Iglesias-Poveda, Javier Flores-Fraile, Diego González-Gil, Joaquín López-Marcos","doi":"10.3389/fdmed.2025.1600500","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Selective caries removal aims to preserve pulp vitality and tooth structure by eliminating only infected dentin. Caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence devices are the main diagnostic tools supporting this minimally invasive approach.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance, benefits, and limitations of these two modalities. Additionally, it examines potential synergies with magnification tools and proposes future directions for clinical protocol development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of 124 articles screened, four met the inclusion criteria for direct comparison of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems. Diagnostic accuracy, clinical outcomes, and bias risk (ROBINS-I/ROBINS-E) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All four studies supported the effectiveness of both techniques in selective caries removal. Laser fluorescence devices showed higher sensitivity (ranging from 0.76 to 0.92) and specificity (0.74 to 0.88), along with better accuracy in detecting infected dentin compared to dyes. Dyes were noted for ease of use but showed greater variability in outcomes. Risk of bias ranged from low to moderate across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Laser fluorescence systems appear to be more reliable for intraoperative caries detection during selective caries removal. Nevertheless, a combined diagnostic approach, particularly with magnification, may optimize outcomes. These findings support the integration of fluorescence systems in caries management protocols. Further clinical trials are needed to validate these findings and develop standardized, evidence-based protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":73077,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in dental medicine","volume":"6 ","pages":"1600500"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12307344/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems for intraoperative diagnosis during selective caries removal: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Iglesias-Poveda, Javier Flores-Fraile, Diego González-Gil, Joaquín López-Marcos\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fdmed.2025.1600500\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Selective caries removal aims to preserve pulp vitality and tooth structure by eliminating only infected dentin. Caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence devices are the main diagnostic tools supporting this minimally invasive approach.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance, benefits, and limitations of these two modalities. Additionally, it examines potential synergies with magnification tools and proposes future directions for clinical protocol development.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of 124 articles screened, four met the inclusion criteria for direct comparison of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems. Diagnostic accuracy, clinical outcomes, and bias risk (ROBINS-I/ROBINS-E) were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All four studies supported the effectiveness of both techniques in selective caries removal. Laser fluorescence devices showed higher sensitivity (ranging from 0.76 to 0.92) and specificity (0.74 to 0.88), along with better accuracy in detecting infected dentin compared to dyes. Dyes were noted for ease of use but showed greater variability in outcomes. Risk of bias ranged from low to moderate across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Laser fluorescence systems appear to be more reliable for intraoperative caries detection during selective caries removal. Nevertheless, a combined diagnostic approach, particularly with magnification, may optimize outcomes. These findings support the integration of fluorescence systems in caries management protocols. Further clinical trials are needed to validate these findings and develop standardized, evidence-based protocols.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in dental medicine\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"1600500\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12307344/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in dental medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1600500\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in dental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1600500","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:选择性除龋的目的是通过只清除受感染的牙本质来保持牙髓活力和牙齿结构。蛀牙检测染料和激光荧光装置是支持这种微创方法的主要诊断工具。目的:评价和比较这两种方法的诊断性能、优点和局限性。此外,它还研究了与放大工具的潜在协同作用,并提出了临床方案发展的未来方向。方法:根据PRISMA-ScR指南进行范围审查。在筛选的124篇文章中,有4篇符合直接比较龋检染料和激光荧光系统的纳入标准。评估诊断准确性、临床结果和偏倚风险(ROBINS-I/ROBINS-E)。结果:所有四项研究都支持这两种技术在选择性除龋方面的有效性。与染料相比,激光荧光装置在检测感染牙本质方面显示出更高的灵敏度(0.76至0.92)和特异性(0.74至0.88),以及更高的准确性。染料以易于使用而著称,但在结果上表现出更大的可变性。各研究的偏倚风险从低到中等。结论:激光荧光系统在选择性除龋术中对龋的检测更为可靠。然而,联合诊断方法,特别是放大,可能会优化结果。这些发现支持将荧光系统整合到龋齿管理方案中。需要进一步的临床试验来验证这些发现并制定标准化的、基于证据的方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative evaluation of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems for intraoperative diagnosis during selective caries removal: a scoping review.

Comparative evaluation of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems for intraoperative diagnosis during selective caries removal: a scoping review.

Comparative evaluation of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems for intraoperative diagnosis during selective caries removal: a scoping review.

Comparative evaluation of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems for intraoperative diagnosis during selective caries removal: a scoping review.

Background: Selective caries removal aims to preserve pulp vitality and tooth structure by eliminating only infected dentin. Caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence devices are the main diagnostic tools supporting this minimally invasive approach.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance, benefits, and limitations of these two modalities. Additionally, it examines potential synergies with magnification tools and proposes future directions for clinical protocol development.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of 124 articles screened, four met the inclusion criteria for direct comparison of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems. Diagnostic accuracy, clinical outcomes, and bias risk (ROBINS-I/ROBINS-E) were assessed.

Results: All four studies supported the effectiveness of both techniques in selective caries removal. Laser fluorescence devices showed higher sensitivity (ranging from 0.76 to 0.92) and specificity (0.74 to 0.88), along with better accuracy in detecting infected dentin compared to dyes. Dyes were noted for ease of use but showed greater variability in outcomes. Risk of bias ranged from low to moderate across studies.

Conclusions: Laser fluorescence systems appear to be more reliable for intraoperative caries detection during selective caries removal. Nevertheless, a combined diagnostic approach, particularly with magnification, may optimize outcomes. These findings support the integration of fluorescence systems in caries management protocols. Further clinical trials are needed to validate these findings and develop standardized, evidence-based protocols.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信