Novaes T F, Matos R, Braga M M, Imparato J C P, Raggio D P, Mendes F M
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Caries Res. 2009;43(1):36-42. doi: 10.1159/000189705. Epub 2009 Jan 9.
This in vivo study aimed to compare the performance of different methods of approximal caries detection in primary molars. Fifty children (aged 5-12 years) were selected, and 2 examiners evaluated 621 approximal surfaces of primary molars using: (a) visual inspection, (b) the radiographic method and (c) a pen-type laser fluorescence device (LFpen). As reference standard method, the teeth were separated using orthodontic rubbers during 7 days, and the surfaces were evaluated by 2 examiners for the presence of white spots or cavitations. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (A(z)) as well as sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (percentage of correct diagnosis) were calculated and compared with the McNemar test at both thresholds. The interexaminer reproducibility was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC-absolute values) and the kappa test (dichotomizing for both thresholds). The ICC value of the reference standard procedure was 0.94. At white-spot threshold, no methods tested presented good performance (sensitivity: visual 0.20-0.21; radiographic 0.16-0.23; LFpen 0.16; specificity: visual 0.95; radiographic 0.99-1.00; LFpen 0.94-0.96). At cavitation threshold, both LFpen and radiographic methods demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.55-0.65 and 0.65-0.70, respectively) and A(z) (0.92 and 0.88-0.89, respectively) than visual inspection sensitivity (0.30) and A(z) (0.69-0.76). All methods presented high specificities (around 0.99) and similar ICCs, but the kappa value for LFpen at white-spot threshold was lower (0.44). In conclusion, both LFpen and radiographic methods present similar performance in detecting the presence of cavitations on approximal surfaces of primary molars.
这项体内研究旨在比较不同方法检测乳磨牙邻面龋的性能。选取了50名儿童(年龄在5至12岁之间),两名检查者使用以下方法对621个乳磨牙邻面进行评估:(a) 视觉检查,(b) 放射照相法,以及 (c) 笔式激光荧光装置(LFpen)。作为参考标准方法,使用正畸橡皮圈将牙齿分离7天,两名检查者评估这些表面是否存在白斑或龋洞。计算接受者操作特征曲线下面积(A(z))以及敏感性、特异性和准确性(正确诊断百分比),并在两个阈值下用McNemar检验进行比较。使用组内相关系数(ICC - 绝对值)和kappa检验(对两个阈值进行二分法)计算检查者间的可重复性。参考标准程序的ICC值为0.94。在白斑阈值时,所测试的方法均未表现出良好的性能(敏感性:视觉检查为0.20 - 0.21;放射照相法为0.16 - 0.23;LFpen为0.16;特异性:视觉检查为0.95;放射照相法为0.99 - 1.00;LFpen为0.94 - 0.96)。在龋洞阈值时,LFpen和放射照相法均显示出比视觉检查更高的敏感性(分别为0.55 - 0.65和0.65 - 0.70)和A(z)(分别为0.92和0.88 - 0.89)(视觉检查敏感性为0.30,A(z)为0.69 - 0.76)。所有方法均表现出高特异性(约为0.99)和相似的ICC,但LFpen在白斑阈值时的kappa值较低(0.44)。总之,LFpen和放射照相法在检测乳磨牙邻面龋洞的存在方面表现出相似的性能。