An Investigation of Diagnostic Performance of DIAGNOdent Pen and the Canary System for Assessment and Monitoring Enamel Caries under Fissure Sealants.

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of a quantitative light-induced fluorescence (DIAGNOdent pen [DP]) and a photothermal radiometry (Canary System [CS]) for assessment and monitoring occlusal enamel caries under fissure sealants placed on young permanent teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five patients of mean age 9.96 (1.4) years, having at least two occlusal surface sites of non-cavitated lesions (International Caries Detection and Assessment System [ICDAS], 1-3 at baseline), were assigned for this clinical study as per specific inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 90 permanent teeth were examined using a visual examination method (ICDAS), a quantitative light-induced fluorescence (DP), and a photothermal radiometry (CS). Teeth were randomly divided into two groups based on the type of fissure sealants: a resin sealant and a glass-ionomer sealant. Sealants were placed over the study sites, and caries assessment was performed with each caries detection method at 3- and 6-month recall appointments. Numerical data were presented as mean, standard deviation, median, and interquartile range values. Qualitative data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the diagnostic accuracy measures of the two modalities and compared using -statistic. ROC curve analysis was performed with MedCalc software, Ostend, Belgium, version 11.3 for Windows (MedCalc Software). Changes by time in caries progression were analyzed using McNemar test and Cochran test. The significance level was set at ≤ 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed with the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software for Windows, version 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, New York).

RESULTS

The CS and DP were able to distinguish between sound and carious tissue beneath fully and partially retained sealants at 6-month follow-up with an accuracy of 46.7% and 33.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic performance of the CS and DP are acceptable and can be considered as useful adjunct tools in the clinical evaluation and monitoring the changes in enamel due to lesion progression under fissure sealants. However, in the clinical setting, sensitivity and specificity of these devices may be influenced by the sealant type, thickness, retention, and the differences in the lesion characteristics over time.