School of Dentistry, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
J Endod. 2011 Dec;37(12):1619-23. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.07.004. Epub 2011 Sep 9.
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical accuracy, reliability, and repeatability of laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF), an electric pulp test (EPT), and various thermal pulp sensibility tests.
Pulp tests were done on 121 teeth in 20 subjects by using LDF, EPT, and thermal pulp testing (CO(2), Endo Frost [EF], Ice) during 2 or 3 test sessions with at least 1-week intervals. The order of testing was reversed on the second visit. A laser Doppler flowmeter was used to measure mean pulp blood flow (Flux) calibrated against a brownian motion medium and zeroed against a static reflector. The laser source was 780 nm, with 0.5-mm fiber separation in the probe, 3.1 kHz as the primary bandwidth for filter set to 0.1-second time output constant. Customized polyvinylsiloxane splints were fabricated for each participant, and a minimum of 90-second recording time was used for each tooth. Raw data were analyzed by using repeated measure analysis of variance, pairwise comparisons, and interclass correlations (ICC).
The accuracy of EPT, CO(2), and LDF tests was 97.7%, 97.0%, and 96.3%, respectively, without significant differences (P > .3). Accuracy of EF and Ice was 90.7% and 84.8%, respectively. EPT (P = .015) and CO(2) (P = .022) were significantly more accurate than EF. LDF was more accurate than EF, but this was not statistically significant (P = .063). Ice was significantly less accurate than EPT (P = .004), CO(2) (P = .005), LDF (P = .006), and EF (P = .019). With the exception of Ice (effect of visit: F(2,38) = 5.67, mean squared error = 0.01, P = .007, η(2)(p) = 0.23), all tests were reliable. Ice (ICC = 0.677) and LDF (ICC = 0.654) were the most repeatable of the tests, whereas EPT (ICC = 0.434) and CO(2) (ICC = 0.432) were less repeatable.
CO(2), EPT, and LDF were reliable and the most accurate tests, but CO(2) and EPT were less repeatable yet less time-consuming than LDF. EF was reliable but not as accurate as EPT and CO(2) and less repeatable than Ice and LDF. Ice was the most repeatable but the least accurate and least reliable test.
本研究旨在比较激光多普勒血流仪（LDF）、电活力测试（EPT）和各种牙髓热敏测试的临床准确性、可靠性和可重复性。
在 20 名受试者的 121 颗牙齿上，通过 LDF、EPT 和牙髓热敏测试（CO2、Endo Frost[EF]、Ice），在 2 或 3 次测试中，每次测试之间至少间隔 1 周。第二次就诊时，测试顺序颠倒。激光多普勒血流仪用于测量经布朗运动介质校准的平均牙髓血流（Flux），并使用静态反射器归零。激光源为 780nm，探头的光纤间距为 0.5mm，初级带宽为 3.1kHz，滤波器设置为 0.1 秒时间输出常数。为每位参与者制作了定制的聚硅氧烷夹板，每个牙齿至少记录 90 秒。使用重复测量方差分析、两两比较和组内相关系数（ICC）对原始数据进行分析。
EPT、CO2 和 LDF 测试的准确性分别为 97.7%、97.0%和 96.3%，差异无统计学意义（P>.3）。EF 和 Ice 的准确性分别为 90.7%和 84.8%。EPT（P=.015）和 CO2（P=.022）的准确性明显高于 EF。LDF 比 EF 更准确，但差异无统计学意义（P=.063）。Ice 的准确性明显低于 EPT（P=.004）、CO2（P=.005）、LDF（P=.006）和 EF（P=.019）。除 Ice 外（就诊影响：F（2，38）=5.67，均方误差=0.01，P=.007，η2（p）=0.23），所有测试均可靠。Ice（ICC=0.677）和 LDF（ICC=0.654）是测试中最可重复的，而 EPT（ICC=0.434）和 CO2（ICC=0.432）的可重复性较差。
CO2、EPT 和 LDF 是可靠的且最准确的测试，但 CO2 和 EPT 的可重复性不如 LDF，但比 LDF 耗时更少。EF 可靠，但不如 EPT 和 CO2 准确，且不如 Ice 和 LDF 可重复性好。Ice 是最可重复的，但准确性最低，可靠性最差。
