Zeitouny Mona, Feghali Mireille, Nasr Assaad, Abou-Samra Philippe, Saleh Nadine, Bourgeois Denis, Farge Pierre
Department of Aesthetic and Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Lebanese University, Hadath, Lebanon.
Faculty of Nursing and Health Sciences, Notre Dame University, Beirut, Lebanon.
ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:924741. doi: 10.1155/2014/924741. Epub 2014 Oct 21.
The aim of this study was to evaluate a light-emitting diode fluorescence tool, the SOPROLIFE light-induced fluorescence evaluator, and compare it to the international caries detection and assessment system-II (ICDAS-II) in the detection of occlusal caries.
A total of 219 permanent posterior teeth in 21 subjects, with age ranging from 15 to 65 years, were examined. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was computed to assess the reliability between the two diagnostic methods.
The results showed a high reliability between the two methods (ICC = 0.92; IC = 0.901-0.940; P < 0.001). The SOPROLIFE blue fluorescence mode had a high sensitivity (87%) and a high specificity (99%) when compared to ICDAS-II.
Compared to the most used visual method in the diagnosis of occlusal caries lesions, the finding from this study suggests that SOPROLIFE can be used as a reproducible and reliable assessment tool. At a cut-off point, categorizing noncarious lesions and visual change in enamel, SOPROLIFE shows a high sensitivity and specificity. We can conclude that financially ICDAS is better than SOPROLIFE. However SOPROLIFE is easier for clinicians since it is a simple evaluation of images. Finally in terms of efficiency SOPROLIFE is not superior to ICDAS but tends to be equivalent with the same advantages.
本研究旨在评估一种发光二极管荧光工具，即SOPROLIFE光诱导荧光评估仪，并将其与国际龋病检测与评估系统-II（ICDAS-II）在咬合面龋检测方面进行比较。
对21名年龄在15至65岁之间的受试者的219颗恒后牙进行了检查。计算组内相关系数（ICC）以评估两种诊断方法之间的可靠性。
结果显示两种方法之间具有高度可靠性（ICC = 0.92；IC = 0.901 - 0.940；P < 0.001）。与ICDAS-II相比，SOPROLIFE蓝色荧光模式具有高灵敏度（87%）和高特异性（99%）。
与诊断咬合面龋损最常用的视觉方法相比，本研究结果表明SOPROLIFE可作为一种可重复且可靠的评估工具。在区分非龋损病变和釉质视觉变化的临界点上，SOPROLIFE显示出高灵敏度和特异性。我们可以得出结论，在费用方面ICDAS优于SOPROLIFE。然而，SOPROLIFE对临床医生来说更容易，因为它是对图像的简单评估。最后，在效率方面SOPROLIFE并不优于ICDAS，但往往具有同等优势。
