Gimenez T, Bittar D G, Piovesan C, Guglielmi C A B, Fujimoto K Y, Matos R, Novaes T F, Braga M M, Mendes F M
Oper Dent. 2013 Nov-Dec;38(6):583-90. doi: 10.2341/12-067-C. Epub 2013 Apr 25.
Our hypothesis was that a method of caries activity evaluation based on the clinical features of the lesions would be less time consuming but more influenced by the examiner's experience than the scoring system used in association with the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS). Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of three groups of examiners with different levels of experience using two different methods to assess the activity status of caries lesions by visual inspection. A cross-sectional study in a dental office setting was performed selecting 18 children, aged three to eight years, who had sought dental treatment at a dental school. Examinations to detect caries lesions were performed using visual inspection by six examiners with different levels of experience: two undergraduate dental students, two specialists in pediatric dentistry, and two graduate students. The examiners used ICDAS and two different methods to assess caries activity: using an additional score system or considering the examination of clinical features. Two benchmark examiners examined the children in a joint session, and their consensus was considered to be the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility were calculated for different thresholds: all, cavitated, and active caries lesions. Multilevel analyses were performed to compare the different methods and examiners. No differences were observed among the examiners, either in detecting all lesions and cavitated lesions or regarding the activity assessment. The methods of assessing activity status performed similarly, but the time spent on examinations was shorter for the method evaluating clinical features. In conclusion, the experience of examiners does not significantly influence the performance of visual inspection, and both methods of assessing activity status result in similar diagnostic accuracy.
我们的假设是,基于病变临床特征的龋病活动评估方法比与国际龋病检测与评估系统(ICDAS)联合使用的评分系统耗时更少,但受检查者经验的影响更大。因此,本研究的目的是评估三组经验水平不同的检查者使用两种不同方法通过视觉检查评估龋病病变活动状态的表现。在一家牙科诊所进行了一项横断面研究,选取了18名年龄在3至8岁之间、曾在牙科学院寻求牙科治疗的儿童。由六名经验水平不同的检查者通过视觉检查来检测龋病病变:两名牙科本科生、两名儿童牙科专家和两名研究生。检查者使用ICDAS以及两种不同方法评估龋病活动:使用额外的评分系统或考虑临床特征检查。两名基准检查者在联合检查中对儿童进行检查,他们的共识被视为参考标准。计算了不同阈值(所有龋病病变、有龋洞的病变和活动龋病病变)下的敏感性、特异性和可重复性。进行了多水平分析以比较不同方法和检查者。在检测所有病变和有龋洞的病变方面,以及在活动评估方面,检查者之间均未观察到差异。评估活动状态的方法表现相似,但评估临床特征的方法检查耗时更短。总之,检查者的经验对视觉检查的表现没有显著影响,并且两种评估活动状态的方法诊断准确性相似。