Lenzi Tathiane L, Piovesan Chaiana, Mendes Fausto M, Braga Mariana M, Raggio Daniela P
Department of Stomatology, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil.
Curso de Odontologia, Unifra - Centro Universitário Franciscano, Santa Maria, Brazil.
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2016 Jan;26(1):26-34. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12154. Epub 2015 Jan 21.
Secondary caries is the main reason for restoration replacement, and therefore, an accurate detection of this type of condition is fundamental.
To compare in vitro the performance of different conventional and quantitative light-induced fluorescence-based (QLF) methods in detecting occlusal caries around resin composite restorations in primary molars.
Two examiners evaluated independently 42 sites adjacent to tooth-colored restorations using visual inspection (ICDAS-CARS), radiographic examination, and QLF. Histological examination was used as reference standard method. Area under the ROC curve (Az), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the methods were calculated at enamel (D1) and dentin caries (D3) lesions thresholds. Intra- and interexaminer reproducibility were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa statistics.
There was no difference among the methods considering Az at D1 threshold. Visual inspection, radiograph, and QLF (scores) methods presented similar sensitivities and significantly higher than those obtained with the QLF (∆F%). At D3 threshold, there were no differences among the methods regarding sensitivities, specificities, and accuracy, except for the examiner 2 with the QLF (∆F%) who achieved a very low sensitivity value.
Conventional methods are similar to QLF methods for detecting caries around tooth-colored restorations in primary teeth.
继发龋是修复体替换的主要原因,因此,准确检测这种情况至关重要。
在体外比较不同传统方法和基于定量光诱导荧光(QLF)的方法在检测乳磨牙树脂复合修复体周围咬合面龋方面的性能。
两名检查者使用视觉检查(ICDAS - CARS)、X线检查和QLF独立评估与牙齿颜色修复体相邻的42个部位。组织学检查用作参考标准方法。在釉质(D1)和牙本质龋(D3)病变阈值处计算方法的ROC曲线下面积(Az)、敏感性、特异性和准确性。使用组内相关系数(ICC)和kappa统计量计算检查者内和检查者间的可重复性。
在D1阈值处考虑Az时,各方法之间没有差异。视觉检查、X线片和QLF(评分)方法表现出相似的敏感性,且显著高于QLF(∆F%)获得的敏感性。在D3阈值处,除检查者2使用QLF(∆F%)获得非常低的敏感性值外,各方法在敏感性、特异性和准确性方面没有差异。
传统方法在检测乳牙牙齿颜色修复体周围龋方面与QLF方法相似。