Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University Center for Dental Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology, Endodontology and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, Eberhard-Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Sep;25(9):5189-5196. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03826-7. Epub 2021 Feb 13.
The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the conventional illumination method (CONV) and the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) for distinguishing between composite restorations and intact teeth using different fluorescence-inducing devices commonly used for FIT.
Six groups of six dentists equipped with one of six different FIT systems each independently attempted to identify composite restorations and intact teeth on a full-mouth model with 22 composite restorations using CONV and, 1 h later, FIT. The entire procedure was repeated 1 week later. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, including 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated for CONV and FIT overall and for each device. The influence of examiner age, method, and device on each parameter was assessed by multivariate analysis of variance.
The sensitivity (84%, CI 81-86%), specificity (94%, CI 93-96%), PPV (92%, CI 90-94%), and NPV (90%, CI 88-91%) of FIT was significantly higher than that of CONV (47%, CI 44-50%; 82%, CI 79-84%; 66%, CI 62-69%, and 69%, CI 68-71%, respectively; p<0.001). The differences between CONV and FIT were significant for all parameters and FIT systems except VistaCam, which achieved no significant difference in specificity. Examiners younger than 40 years attained significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive values than older examiners.
FIT is more reliable for detecting composite restorations than the conventional illumination method.
FIT can be considered an additional or alternative tool for improving the detection of composite restorations.
本研究旨在比较传统照明方法（CONV）和荧光辅助识别技术（FIT）在使用常用于 FIT 的不同荧光诱导设备区分复合修复体和完整牙齿时的准确性。
六组共 36 名牙医，每人配备一种不同的 FIT 系统，在一个全口模型上，使用 CONV 和 1 小时后使用 FIT，分别独立尝试识别 22 个复合修复体。一周后重复整个过程。计算 CONV 和 FIT 的总体和每种设备的敏感性、特异性、阳性（PPV）和阴性（NPV）预测值，包括 95%置信区间（CI）。使用多元方差分析评估检查者年龄、方法和设备对每个参数的影响。
FIT 的敏感性（84%，CI 81-86%）、特异性（94%，CI 93-96%）、PPV（92%，CI 90-94%）和 NPV（90%，CI 88-91%）明显高于 CONV（47%，CI 44-50%；82%，CI 79-84%；66%，CI 62-69%和 69%，CI 68-71%；p<0.001）。除 VistaCam 外，所有参数和 FIT 系统的 CONV 和 FIT 之间的差异均具有统计学意义，而 VistaCam 在特异性方面无显著差异。年龄小于 40 岁的检查者的敏感性和阴性预测值明显高于年龄较大的检查者。
FIT 比传统照明方法更可靠地用于检测复合修复体。
FIT 可以被认为是提高复合修复体检测的附加或替代工具。
