Dental Clinic-Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Dental Practice Drs. Baresel, 90556 Cadolzburg, Germany.
Sensors (Basel). 2022 Mar 10;22(6):2156. doi: 10.3390/s22062156.
The aim of this in vitro study was to systematically investigate new caries diagnostic tools, including three intraoral scanners, and compare them to established diagnostic methods. For a standardized analysis of occlusal and proximal caries lesions, human permanent and primary teeth (n = 64) were embedded in models and investigated in a phantom head using six different caries diagnostic methods: visual examination, bitewing radiography, Diagnocam (KaVo, Biberach, Germany), Trios 4 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), iTero Element 5D (Align Technology, San José, CA, USA), and Planmeca Emerald S (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). The diagnostic methods were investigated and compared to reference µ-CT for permanent and primary teeth separately. For occlusal caries diagnostics in permanent teeth, the best agreement to the reference (reliability) was obtained for Planmeca Emerald S (ĸ = 0.700), whereas in primary teeth, for visual examination (ĸ = 0.927), followed by Trios 4 (ĸ = 0.579). Regarding proximal caries diagnostics, bitewing radiography, as the gold standard, exhibited the highest agreement for permanent (ĸ = 0.643) and primary teeth (ĸ = 0.871). Concerning the analysis of the diagnostic quality (sensitivity and specificity) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, comparable findings were obtained for area under curve (AUC) values as for reliability. No diagnostic method could be identified that is generally suitable for occlusal and proximal lesions in both dentitions. Overall, caries diagnostics with intraoral scanners seem to be interesting tools that should be further investigated in clinical studies.
本体外研究旨在系统地研究新的龋齿诊断工具,包括三种口内扫描仪,并将其与已建立的诊断方法进行比较。为了标准化分析咬合面和近中面龋齿病变,将人类恒牙和乳牙(n=64)嵌入模型中,并在幻影头颅中使用六种不同的龋齿诊断方法进行研究:肉眼检查、咬合翼片、Diagnocam(卡瓦,比伯拉赫,德国)、Trios 4(3Shape,哥本哈根,丹麦)、iTero Element 5D(Align Technology,圣何塞,加利福尼亚州,美国)和 Planmeca Emerald S(普兰梅卡,赫尔辛基,芬兰)。分别对恒牙和乳牙的诊断方法进行了研究和比较。对于恒牙的咬合面龋齿诊断,与参考µ-CT 具有最佳一致性(可靠性)的是 Planmeca Emerald S(ĸ=0.700),而对于乳牙,是肉眼检查(ĸ=0.927),其次是 Trios 4(ĸ=0.579)。关于近中面龋齿诊断,作为金标准的咬合翼片,对恒牙(ĸ=0.643)和乳牙(ĸ=0.871)的一致性最高。关于使用接收者操作特性(ROC)曲线分析诊断质量(敏感性和特异性)的分析,获得了与可靠性相当的曲线下面积(AUC)值。没有一种诊断方法可以被确定为在两种牙列中都适合于咬合面和近中面病变的一般方法。总体而言,口内扫描仪的龋齿诊断似乎是一种很有前途的工具,应在临床研究中进一步研究。