A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection

The aim of the study is to compare the diagnostic capabilities of three different diagnostic methods: Quantitative Laser Fluorescence (QLF) − DIAGNOdent Classic (DD), Light-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) − SoproLife daylight and blue fluorescence, and their relevance to ICDAS II system in detection of f...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Peycheva K., Boteva E.
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Sciendo 2016
Materias:	icdas ii light induced fluorescence quantitative laser fluorescence Medicine R
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/7acce7c4427c4d31bdd6162a387ef531
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:7acce7c4427c4d31bdd6162a387ef531
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:7acce7c4427c4d31bdd6162a387ef5312021-12-02T16:42:08ZA Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection0324-175010.1515/amb-2016-0004https://doaj.org/article/7acce7c4427c4d31bdd6162a387ef5312016-03-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1515/amb-2016-0004https://doaj.org/toc/0324-1750The aim of the study is to compare the diagnostic capabilities of three different diagnostic methods: Quantitative Laser Fluorescence (QLF) − DIAGNOdent Classic (DD), Light-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) − SoproLife daylight and blue fluorescence, and their relevance to ICDAS II system in detection of fissure caries lesions in permanent molars. Permanent molars (n = 45) are divided in two groups: 1) third molars, n = 35; 2) first and second molars, n = 10. They are examined by 2 examiners with and without magnification x5 using ICDAS II, SoproLife “day light” and “blue light” (405nm), LIF, DIAGNOdent Classic − emitting laser light on 655nm, QLF. The results are proven with histological bucco-lingual or mesio-distal sections through the body of the lesion with diamond blade rinsed with water. Photos of all occlusal surfaces of the molars are taken before and after the sections. The lowest overdiagnosis rate is found with SoproLife camera. When visual examination is applied overdiagnoses are fewer than with DD. DD is not capable to differentiate white and brown spots from a caries lesion. Soprolife is not capable to differentiate brown spots from a caries lesion. The most accurate method in this in vitro study for diagnosis of fissure caries is LIF (SoproLife) − 75.6% of the teeth are correctly diagnosed, followed by ICDAS (57.8%) and QLF (DIAGNOdent) (40%).Peycheva K.Boteva E.Sciendoarticleicdas iilight induced fluorescencequantitative laser fluorescenceMedicineRENActa Medica Bulgarica, Vol 43, Iss 1, Pp 30-38 (2016)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	icdas ii light induced fluorescence quantitative laser fluorescence Medicine R
spellingShingle	icdas ii light induced fluorescence quantitative laser fluorescence Medicine R Peycheva K. Boteva E. A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection
description	The aim of the study is to compare the diagnostic capabilities of three different diagnostic methods: Quantitative Laser Fluorescence (QLF) − DIAGNOdent Classic (DD), Light-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) − SoproLife daylight and blue fluorescence, and their relevance to ICDAS II system in detection of fissure caries lesions in permanent molars. Permanent molars (n = 45) are divided in two groups: 1) third molars, n = 35; 2) first and second molars, n = 10. They are examined by 2 examiners with and without magnification x5 using ICDAS II, SoproLife “day light” and “blue light” (405nm), LIF, DIAGNOdent Classic − emitting laser light on 655nm, QLF. The results are proven with histological bucco-lingual or mesio-distal sections through the body of the lesion with diamond blade rinsed with water. Photos of all occlusal surfaces of the molars are taken before and after the sections. The lowest overdiagnosis rate is found with SoproLife camera. When visual examination is applied overdiagnoses are fewer than with DD. DD is not capable to differentiate white and brown spots from a caries lesion. Soprolife is not capable to differentiate brown spots from a caries lesion. The most accurate method in this in vitro study for diagnosis of fissure caries is LIF (SoproLife) − 75.6% of the teeth are correctly diagnosed, followed by ICDAS (57.8%) and QLF (DIAGNOdent) (40%).
format	article
author	Peycheva K. Boteva E.
author_facet	Peycheva K. Boteva E.
author_sort	Peycheva K.
title	A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection
title_short	A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection
title_full	A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection
title_fullStr	A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection
title_full_unstemmed	A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection
title_sort	comparison of different methods for fissure caries detection
publisher	Sciendo
publishDate	2016
url	https://doaj.org/article/7acce7c4427c4d31bdd6162a387ef531
work_keys_str_mv	AT peychevak acomparisonofdifferentmethodsforfissurecariesdetection AT botevae acomparisonofdifferentmethodsforfissurecariesdetection AT peychevak comparisonofdifferentmethodsforfissurecariesdetection AT botevae comparisonofdifferentmethodsforfissurecariesdetection
_version_	1718383582351720448

A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection

Ejemplares similares