R AbdELkader Amr, Hafez Ibrahim Shereen, Elsayed Hassanein Olfat
Department of Conservative dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Faculty of Dentistry, Ahram Canadian University, Giza, Egypt.
Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 17;14(1):16553. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66627-4.
The traditional methods in early caries detection had many limitations. So, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of alternating current impedance spectroscopy ACIST in comparison with digital radiograph and ICDAS-II in detection of occlusal carious lesions. Occlusal surfaces of molar and premolar teeth from 40 adult participants were examined by two observers using three diagnostic methods: (1) international caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS-II) (2) digital radiograph (DR) and (3) Cariescan Pro device (ACIST). Agreement analysis and the difference in sensitivities and specificities were evaluated. The results showed an excellent agreement in the different groups. The difference from the visual tactile against ACIST scoring for enamel caries detection, was statistically significant (p = 0.012) and the agreement was moderate (k = 0.509). For dentinal caries the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) and the agreement was similarly moderate (k < 0.6). The difference from the digital radiograph against ACIST scoring, for enamel caries, digital radiography had significantly higher sensitivity and specificity than ACIST (p < 0.001) while for dentinal caries detection and overall, ACIST had higher sensitivity and digital radiography had higher specificity and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Visual-tactile examination is a considered as feasible and valid technique for occlusal caries detection, digital radiography is superior to ACIST in diagnosing enamel caries, but it could underestimate the caries depth, ACIST is a reliable tool for detecting occlusal caries in dentin.
早期龋齿检测的传统方法存在诸多局限性。因此，本研究旨在评估与数字射线照相术和国际龋病检测与评估系统（ICDAS-II）相比，交流阻抗谱技术（ACIST）在检测咬合面龋损中的临床性能。40名成年参与者的磨牙和前磨牙咬合面由两名观察者使用三种诊断方法进行检查：（1）国际龋病检测与评估系统（ICDAS-II）；（2）数字射线照相术（DR）；（3）Cariescan Pro设备（ACIST）。评估了一致性分析以及敏感性和特异性的差异。结果显示不同组之间具有良好的一致性。在釉质龋检测中，视觉触觉检查与ACIST评分的差异具有统计学意义（p = 0.012），一致性为中等（k = 0.509）。对于牙本质龋，差异无统计学意义（p > 0.05），一致性同样为中等（k < 0.6）。在釉质龋方面，数字射线照相术与ACIST评分的差异中，数字射线照相术的敏感性和特异性显著高于ACIST（p < 0.001），而在牙本质龋检测及总体情况中，ACIST具有更高的敏感性，数字射线照相术具有更高的特异性，差异具有统计学意义（p < 0.001）。视觉触觉检查被认为是检测咬合面龋的可行且有效的技术，数字射线照相术在诊断釉质龋方面优于ACIST，但可能会低估龋损深度，ACIST是检测牙本质中咬合面龋的可靠工具。
