Kühnisch Jan, Ifland Susanne, Tranaeus Sofia, Hickel Reinhard, Stösser Lutz, Heinrich-Weltzien Roswitha
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Germany.
Acta Odontol Scand. 2007 Jun;65(3):183-8. doi: 10.1080/00016350701291685.
The aim of this clinical caries detection study was to compare the outcome of quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) and meticulous visual inspection (VI) in detecting non-cavitated caries lesions on occlusal surfaces in young adolescents. It was hypothesized that the respective diagnostic performances of meticulous VI and QLF are similar.
The subjects were 34 fifteen-year-old students. Five-hundred-and-seventeen cleaned occlusal surfaces were air-dried and examined using VI. Fluorescence images were captured with QLF equipment and custom software was used to display, store and analyze the images. The area of the lesion (area; mm2), fluorescence loss (DeltaF;%) and DeltaQ (AreaDeltaF; mm2%) were determined at a QLF threshold of -5%. The presence/absence of non-cavitated lesions was independently recorded with both methods.
78.8% of all untreated surfaces were classified as sound or as having a non-cavitated lesion with both methods uniformly (VI+QLF). On 7.1% of all surfaces a lesion was detected by VI only and on 14.1% by QLF only. All parameters (Area, DeltaF, DeltaQ) differed significantly between lesions registered with both methods (VI+QLF) and lesions recorded with QLF only.
It was concluded that our hypothesis cannot be confirmed. The study shows that QLF detects (1) more non-cavitated occlusal lesions and (2) smaller lesions compared to VI. However, taking into consideration time-consuming image capturing and analysis, QLF is not really practical for use in the dental office.
本临床龋齿检测研究的目的是比较定量光诱导荧光（QLF）和细致视觉检查（VI）在检测青少年恒牙咬合面非龋洞性龋损方面的效果。研究假设细致视觉检查和QLF的诊断性能相似。
研究对象为34名15岁的学生。对517个清洁后的咬合面进行空气干燥处理，然后用VI进行检查。使用QLF设备采集荧光图像，并使用定制软件显示、存储和分析图像。在QLF阈值为-5%时，测定病变面积（面积；mm²）、荧光损失（ΔF；%）和ΔQ（面积×ΔF；mm²×%）。两种方法独立记录非龋洞性病变的有无。
所有未治疗表面中，78.8%的表面通过两种方法（VI+QLF）均被分类为正常或有非龋洞性病变。在所有表面中，7.1%的表面仅通过VI检测到病变，14.1%的表面仅通过QLF检测到病变。两种方法（VI+QLF）记录的病变与仅通过QLF记录的病变之间，所有参数（面积、ΔF、ΔQ）均存在显著差异。
研究得出结论，我们的假设无法得到证实。该研究表明，与VI相比，QLF能检测出（1）更多的非龋洞性咬合面病变，（2）更小的病变。然而，考虑到耗时的图像采集和分析，QLF在牙科诊所的实际应用中并不实用。
