1
|
Tan R, Zhu X, Chen S, Zhang J, Liu Z, Li Z, Fan H, Wang X, Yang L. Caries lesions diagnosis with deep convolutional neural network in intraoral QLF images by handheld device. BMC Oral Health 2024; 24:754. [PMID: 38951770 PMCID: PMC11218122 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04517-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2024] [Accepted: 06/21/2024] [Indexed: 07/03/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study investigated the effectiveness of a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) in diagnosing and staging caries lesions in quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) images taken by a self-manufactured handheld device. METHODS A small toothbrush-like device consisting of a 400 nm UV light-emitting lamp with a 470 nm filter was manufactured for intraoral imaging. A total of 133 cases with 9,478 QLF images of teeth were included for caries lesion evaluation using a CNN model. The database was divided into development, validation, and testing cohorts at a 7:2:1 ratio. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for model performance. RESULTS The overall caries prevalence was 19.59%. The CNN model achieved an AUC of 0.88, an accuracy of 0.88, a specificity of 0.94, and a sensitivity of 0.64 in the validation cohort. They achieved an overall accuracy of 0.92, a sensitivity of 0.95 and a specificity of 0.55 in the testing cohort. The model can distinguish different stages of caries well, with the best performance in detecting deep caries followed by intermediate and superficial lesions. CONCLUSIONS Caries lesions have typical characteristics in QLF images and can be detected by CNNs. A QLF-based device with CNNs can assist in caries screening in the clinic or at home. TRIAL REGISTRATION The clinical trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2300073487, Date: 12/07/2023).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rukeng Tan
- Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, 56th Lingyuanxi Road, Guangzhou, 510055, Guangdong, China
- Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Xinyu Zhu
- Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, 56th Lingyuanxi Road, Guangzhou, 510055, Guangdong, China
- Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Sishi Chen
- Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, 56th Lingyuanxi Road, Guangzhou, 510055, Guangdong, China
- Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Jie Zhang
- Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, 56th Lingyuanxi Road, Guangzhou, 510055, Guangdong, China
- Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Zhixin Liu
- Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, 56th Lingyuanxi Road, Guangzhou, 510055, Guangdong, China
- Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Zhengshi Li
- Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, 56th Lingyuanxi Road, Guangzhou, 510055, Guangdong, China
- Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China
| | - Hang Fan
- Guangzhou Stars Pulse Co., Ltd, 239th Tianhe North Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510610, Guangdong, China
| | - Xi Wang
- Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, 56th Lingyuanxi Road, Guangzhou, 510055, Guangdong, China.
- Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
| | - Le Yang
- Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, 56th Lingyuanxi Road, Guangzhou, 510055, Guangdong, China.
- Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Stomatology, No. 74, 2nd Zhongshan Road, Guangzhou, 510080, Guangdong, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kühnisch J, Aps JK, Splieth C, Lussi A, Jablonski-Momeni A, Mendes FM, Schmalz G, Fontana M, Banerjee A, Ricketts D, Schwendicke F, Douglas G, Campus G, van der Veen M, Opdam N, Doméjean S, Martignon S, Neuhaus KW, Horner K, Huysmans MCD. ORCA-EFCD consensus report on clinical recommendation for caries diagnosis. Paper I: caries lesion detection and depth assessment. Clin Oral Investig 2024; 28:227. [PMID: 38514502 PMCID: PMC10957694 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05597-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2023] [Accepted: 02/29/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of the present consensus paper was to provide recommendations for clinical practice considering the use of visual examination, dental radiography and adjunct methods for primary caries detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS The executive councils of the European Organisation for Caries Research (ORCA) and the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) nominated ten experts each to join the expert panel. The steering committee formed three work groups that were asked to provide recommendations on (1) caries detection and diagnostic methods, (2) caries activity assessment and (3) forming individualised caries diagnoses. The experts responsible for "caries detection and diagnostic methods" searched and evaluated the relevant literature, drafted this manuscript and made provisional consensus recommendations. These recommendations were discussed and refined during the structured process in the whole work group. Finally, the agreement for each recommendation was determined using an anonymous Delphi survey. RESULTS Recommendations (N = 8) were approved and agreed upon by the whole expert panel: visual examination (N = 3), dental radiography (N = 3) and additional diagnostic methods (N = 2). While the quality of evidence was found to be heterogeneous, all recommendations were agreed upon by the expert panel. CONCLUSION Visual examination is recommended as the first-choice method for the detection and assessment of caries lesions on accessible surfaces. Intraoral radiography, preferably bitewing, is recommended as an additional method. Adjunct, non-ionising radiation methods might also be useful in certain clinical situations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The expert panel merged evidence from the scientific literature with practical considerations and provided recommendations for their use in daily dental practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Kühnisch
- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltung und Parodontologie, Goethestraße 70, 80336, München, Germany.
| | | | - Christian Splieth
- Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, Center for Oral Health, Universitätsmedizin Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany
| | - Adrian Lussi
- University Hospital for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
- Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | | | - Fausto M Mendes
- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Gottfried Schmalz
- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
- Department of Periodontology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Margherita Fontana
- Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - Avijit Banerjee
- Conservative & MI Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
| | - David Ricketts
- Unit of Restorative Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | - Falk Schwendicke
- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München, Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltung und Parodontologie, Goethestraße 70, 80336, München, Germany
| | - Gail Douglas
- Department of Dental Public Health, University of Leeds Dental School, Leeds, UK
| | - Guglielmo Campus
- Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
- Department of Surgery, Microsurgery and Medicine Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy
| | - Monique van der Veen
- Departments of Preventive Dentistry and Paediatric Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Oral Hygiene School, Inholland University of applied sciences, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Niek Opdam
- Department of Dentistry, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Sophie Doméjean
- Centre de Recherche en Odontologie Clinique EA 4847, UFR d'Odontologie, Département d'Odontologie Conservatrice, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France
- Service d'Odontologie, CHU Estaing Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Stefania Martignon
- UNICA - Caries Research Unit, Research Department, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Klaus W Neuhaus
- Department of Pediatric Oral Health, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel (UZB), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- Department of Dermatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Keith Horner
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Le N, Lu J, Tang P, Chung KH, Subhash H, Kilpatrick-Liverman L, Wang RK. Intraoral optical coherence tomography and angiography combined with autofluorescence for dental assessment. BIOMEDICAL OPTICS EXPRESS 2022; 13:3629-3646. [PMID: 35781964 PMCID: PMC9208603 DOI: 10.1364/boe.460575] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2022] [Revised: 05/20/2022] [Accepted: 05/21/2022] [Indexed: 05/11/2023]
Abstract
There remains a clinical need for an accurate and non-invasive imaging tool for intraoral evaluation of dental conditions. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a potential candidate to meet this need, but the design of current OCT systems limits their utility in the intraoral examinations. The inclusion of light-induced autofluorescence (LIAF) can expedite the image collection process and provides a large field of view for viewing the condition of oral tissues. This study describes a novel LIAF-OCT system equipped with a handheld probe designed for intraoral examination of microstructural (via OCT) and microvascular information (via OCT angiography, OCTA). The handheld probe is optimized for use in clinical studies, maintaining the ability to detect and image changes in the condition of oral tissue (e.g., hard tissue damage, presence of dental restorations, plaque, and tooth stains). The real-time LIAF provides guidance for OCT imaging to achieve a field of view of approximately 6.9 mm × 7.8 mm, and a penetration depth of 1.5 mm to 3 mm depending on the scattering property of the target oral tissue. We demonstrate that the proposed system is successful in capturing reliable depth-resolved images from occlusal and palatal surfaces and offers added design features that can enhance its usability in clinical settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nhan Le
- Department of Bioengineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98195, USA
- These authors contributed equally to this
work
| | - Jie Lu
- Department of Bioengineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98195, USA
- These authors contributed equally to this
work
| | - Peijun Tang
- Department of Bioengineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98195, USA
| | - Kwok-Hung Chung
- Department of Restorative Dentistry,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98195, USA
| | | | | | - Ruikang K. Wang
- Department of Bioengineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
98195, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Macey R, Walsh T, Riley P, Glenny AM, Worthington HV, O'Malley L, Clarkson JE, Ricketts D. Visual or visual-tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 6:CD014546. [PMID: 34124773 PMCID: PMC8428329 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd014546] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The detection and diagnosis of caries at the initial (non-cavitated) and moderate (enamel) levels of severity is fundamental to achieving and maintaining good oral health and prevention of oral diseases. An increasing array of methods of early caries detection have been proposed that could potentially support traditional methods of detection and diagnosis. Earlier identification of disease could afford patients the opportunity of less invasive treatment with less destruction of tooth tissue, reduce the need for treatment with aerosol-generating procedures, and potentially result in a reduced cost of care to the patient and to healthcare services. OBJECTIVES To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different visual classification systems for the detection and diagnosis of non-cavitated coronal dental caries for different purposes (detection and diagnosis) and in different populations (children or adults). SEARCH METHODS Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 April 2020); Embase Ovid (1980 to 30 April 2020); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 30 April 2020); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 30 April 2020). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA We included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared a visual classification system (index test) with a reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs). This included cross-sectional studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Studies reporting at both the patient or tooth surface level were included. In vitro and in vivo studies were considered. Studies that explicitly recruited participants with caries into dentine or frank cavitation were excluded. We also excluded studies that artificially created carious lesions and those that used an index test during the excavation of dental caries to ascertain the optimum depth of excavation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form based on QUADAS-2 specific to the review context. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy were determined using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary points of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and regions, and 95% prediction regions. The comparative accuracy of different classification systems was conducted based on indirect comparisons. Potential sources of heterogeneity were pre-specified and explored visually and more formally through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS We included 71 datasets from 67 studies (48 completed in vitro) reporting a total of 19,590 tooth sites/surfaces. The most frequently reported classification systems were the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) (36 studies) and Ekstrand-Ricketts-Kidd (ERK) (15 studies). In reporting the results, no distinction was made between detection and diagnosis. Only two studies were at low risk of bias across all four domains, and 15 studies were at low concern for applicability across all three domains. The patient selection domain had the highest proportion of high risk of bias studies (49 studies). Four studies were assessed at high risk of bias for the index test domain, nine for the reference standard domain, and seven for the flow and timing domain. Due to the high number of studies on extracted teeth concerns regarding applicability were high for the patient selection and index test domains (49 and 46 studies respectively). Studies were synthesised using a hierarchical bivariate method for meta-analysis. There was substantial variability in the results of the individual studies: sensitivities ranged from 0.16 to 1.00 and specificities from 0 to 1.00. For all visual classification systems the estimated summary sensitivity and specificity point was 0.86 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.90) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.82) respectively, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 20.38 (95% CI 14.33 to 28.98). In a cohort of 1000 tooth surfaces with 28% prevalence of enamel caries, this would result in 40 being classified as disease free when enamel caries was truly present (false negatives), and 163 being classified as diseased in the absence of enamel caries (false positives). The addition of test type to the model did not result in any meaningful difference to the sensitivity or specificity estimates (Chi2(4) = 3.78, P = 0.44), nor did the addition of primary or permanent dentition (Chi2(2) = 0.90, P = 0.64). The variability of results could not be explained by tooth surface (occlusal or approximal), prevalence of dentinal caries in the sample, nor reference standard. Only one study intentionally included restored teeth in its sample and no studies reported the inclusion of sealants. We rated the certainty of the evidence as low, and downgraded two levels in total for risk of bias due to limitations in the design and conduct of the included studies, indirectness arising from the in vitro studies, and inconsistency of results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Whilst the confidence intervals for the summary points of the different visual classification systems indicated reasonable performance, they do not reflect the confidence that one can have in the accuracy of assessment using these systems due to the considerable unexplained heterogeneity evident across the studies. The prediction regions in which the sensitivity and specificity of a future study should lie are very broad, an important consideration when interpreting the results of this review. Should treatment be provided as a consequence of a false-positive result then this would be non-invasive, typically the application of fluoride varnish where it was not required, with low potential for an adverse event but healthcare resource and finance costs. Despite the robust methodology applied in this comprehensive review, the results should be interpreted with some caution due to shortcomings in the design and execution of many of the included studies. Studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of methods to detect and diagnose caries in situ are particularly challenging. Wherever possible future studies should be carried out in a clinical setting, to provide a realistic assessment of performance within the oral cavity with the challenges of plaque, tooth staining, and restorations, and consider methods to minimise bias arising from the use of imperfect reference standards in clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Macey
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Tanya Walsh
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Philip Riley
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Helen V Worthington
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Lucy O'Malley
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Janet E Clarkson
- Division of Oral Health Sciences, Dundee Dental School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Macey R, Walsh T, Riley P, Glenny AM, Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, Ricketts D. Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:CD014547. [PMID: 33724442 PMCID: PMC8406820 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd014547] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Caries is one of the most prevalent, preventable conditions worldwide. A wide variety of management options are available at different thresholds of disease, ranging from non-operative preventive strategies such as improved oral hygiene, reduced sugar diet, and application of topical fluoride, to minimally invasive treatments for early lesions which are limited to enamel, through to selective removal and restoration for extensive lesions. The cornerstone of caries detection is a visual and tactile dental examination, however, an increasing array of methods of caries lesion detection have been proposed that could potentially support traditional methods of detection and diagnosis. Earlier identification of disease could afford patients the opportunity of less invasive treatment with less destruction of tooth tissue, reduce the need for treatment with aerosol-generating procedures, and potentially result in a reduced cost of care to the patient and to healthcare services. OBJECTIVES Our primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of different electrical conductance devices for the detection and diagnosis of non-cavitated coronal dental caries in different populations (children, adolescents, and adults) and when tested against different reference standards. SEARCH METHODS Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 26 April 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 26 April 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 26 April 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 26 April 2019). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA We included diagnostic accuracy studies that compared electrical conductance devices with a reference standard of histology or an enhanced visual examination. This included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. We included studies using previously extracted teeth or those that recruited participants with teeth believed to be sound or with early lesions limited to enamel. Studies that explicitly recruited participants with more advanced lesions that were obviously into dentine or frankly cavitated were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors extracted data independently using a piloted study data extraction form based on the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for each study. This information was displayed as coupled forest plots, and plotted as summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) plots, displaying the sensitivity-specificity points for each study. Due to variability in thresholds we estimated diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) methods. MAIN RESULTS We included seven studies reporting a total of 719 tooth sites or surfaces, with an overall prevalence of the target condition of 73% (528 tooth sites or surfaces). The included studies evaluated two index tests: the electronic caries monitor (ECM) (four studies, 475 tooth surfaces) and CarieScan Pro (three studies, 244 tooth surfaces). Six studies used histology as the reference standard, one used an enhanced visual examination. No study was considered to be at low risk of bias across all four domains or low concern for applicability or both. All studies were at high (five studies) or unclear (two studies) risk of bias for the patient selection domain. We judged two studies to be at unclear risk of bias for the index test domain, and one study to be at high risk of bias for the reference standard and flow and timing domains. We judged three studies to be at low concern for applicability for patient selection, and all seven studies to be of low concern for reference standard and flow and timing domains. Studies were synthesised using a hierarchical method for meta-analysis. There was variability in the results of the individual studies, with sensitivities which ranged from 0.55 to 0.98 and specificities from 0 to 1.00. These extreme values of specificity may be explained by a low number of healthy tooth surfaces in the included samples. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 15.65 (95% CI 1.43 to 171.15), and indicative of the variability in the included studies. Through meta-regression we observed no meaningful difference in accuracy according to device type or dentition. Due to the small number of studies we were unable to formally investigate other potential sources of heterogeneity. We judged the certainty of the evidence as very low, and downgraded for risk of bias due to limitations in the design and conduct of the included studies, imprecision arising from the relatively small number of surfaces studied, and inconsistency due to the variability of results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The design and conduct of studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of methods to detect and diagnose caries in situ is particularly challenging. The evidence base to support the detection and diagnosis of caries with electrical conductance devices is sparse. Newer electrical conductance devices show promise and further research at the enamel caries threshold using a robust study design to minimise bias is warranted. In terms of applicability, any future studies should be carried out in a clinical setting to provide a realistic assessment within the oral cavity where plaque, staining, and restorations can be problematic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Macey
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Tanya Walsh
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Philip Riley
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Helen V Worthington
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Janet E Clarkson
- Division of Oral Health Sciences, Dundee Dental School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Walsh T, Macey R, Riley P, Glenny AM, Schwendicke F, Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, Ricketts D, Su TL, Sengupta A. Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 3:CD014545. [PMID: 33720395 PMCID: PMC8441255 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd014545] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The detection and diagnosis of caries at the earliest opportunity is fundamental to the preservation of tooth tissue and maintenance of oral health. Radiographs have traditionally been used to supplement the conventional visual-tactile clinical examination. Accurate, timely detection and diagnosis of early signs of disease could afford patients the opportunity of less invasive treatment with less destruction of tooth tissue, reduce the need for treatment with aerosol-generating procedures, and potentially result in a reduced cost of care to the patient and to healthcare services. OBJECTIVES To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different dental imaging methods to inform the detection and diagnosis of non-cavitated enamel only coronal dental caries. SEARCH METHODS Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 31 December 2018); Embase Ovid (1980 to 31 December 2018); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 31 December 2018); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 31 December 2018). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA We included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared a dental imaging method with a reference standard (histology, excavation, enhanced visual examination), studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests, and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Studies reporting at both the patient or tooth surface level were included. In vitro and in vivo studies were eligible for inclusion. Studies that explicitly recruited participants with more advanced lesions that were obviously into dentine or frankly cavitated were excluded. We also excluded studies that artificially created carious lesions and those that used an index test during the excavation of dental caries to ascertain the optimum depth of excavation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardised data extraction form and quality assessment based on QUADAS-2 specific to the clinical context. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy were determined using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary points of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence regions. Comparative accuracy of different radiograph methods was conducted based on indirect and direct comparisons between methods. Potential sources of heterogeneity were pre-specified and explored visually and more formally through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS We included 104 datasets from 77 studies reporting a total of 15,518 tooth sites or surfaces. The most frequently reported imaging methods were analogue radiographs (55 datasets from 51 studies) and digital radiographs (42 datasets from 40 studies) followed by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (7 datasets from 7 studies). Only 17 studies were of an in vivo study design, carried out in a clinical setting. No studies were considered to be at low risk of bias across all four domains but 16 studies were judged to have low concern for applicability across all domains. The patient selection domain had the largest number of studies judged to be at high risk of bias (43 studies); the index test, reference standard, and flow and timing domains were judged to be at high risk of bias in 30, 12, and 7 studies respectively. Studies were synthesised using a hierarchical bivariate method for meta-analysis. There was substantial variability in the results of the individual studies, with sensitivities that ranged from 0 to 0.96 and specificities from 0 to 1.00. For all imaging methods the estimated summary sensitivity and specificity point was 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.53) and 0.88 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.92), respectively. In a cohort of 1000 tooth surfaces with a prevalence of enamel caries of 63%, this would result in 337 tooth surfaces being classified as disease free when enamel caries was truly present (false negatives), and 43 tooth surfaces being classified as diseased in the absence of enamel caries (false positives). Meta-regression indicated that measures of accuracy differed according to the imaging method (Chi2(4) = 32.44, P < 0.001), with the highest sensitivity observed for CBCT, and the highest specificity observed for analogue radiographs. None of the specified potential sources of heterogeneity were able to explain the variability in results. No studies included restored teeth in their sample or reported the inclusion of sealants. We rated the certainty of the evidence as low for sensitivity and specificity and downgraded two levels in total for risk of bias due to limitations in the design and conduct of the included studies, indirectness arising from the in vitro studies, and the observed inconsistency of the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The design and conduct of studies to determine the diagnostic accuracy of methods to detect and diagnose caries in situ are particularly challenging. Low-certainty evidence suggests that imaging for the detection or diagnosis of early caries may have poor sensitivity but acceptable specificity, resulting in a relatively high number of false-negative results with the potential for early disease to progress. If left untreated, the opportunity to provide professional or self-care practices to arrest or reverse early caries lesions will be missed. The specificity of lesion detection is however relatively high, and one could argue that initiation of non-invasive management (such as the use of topical fluoride), is probably of low risk. CBCT showed superior sensitivity to analogue or digital radiographs but has very limited applicability to the general dental practitioner. However, given the high-radiation dose, and potential for caries-like artefacts from existing restorations, its use cannot be justified in routine caries detection. Nonetheless, if early incidental carious lesions are detected in CBCT scans taken for other purposes, these should be reported. CBCT has the potential to be used as a reference standard in diagnostic studies of this type. Despite the robust methodology applied in this comprehensive review, the results should be interpreted with some caution due to shortcomings in the design and execution of many of the included studies. Future research should evaluate the comparative accuracy of different methods, be undertaken in a clinical setting, and focus on minimising bias arising from the use of imperfect reference standards in clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tanya Walsh
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Richard Macey
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Philip Riley
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Falk Schwendicke
- Department of Oral Diagnostics, Digital Health and Heatlh Research Services, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Helen V Worthington
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Janet E Clarkson
- Division of Oral Health Sciences, Dundee Dental School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | | | - Ting-Li Su
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Anita Sengupta
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Macey R, Walsh T, Riley P, Hogan R, Glenny AM, Worthington HV, Clarkson JE, Ricketts D. Transillumination and optical coherence tomography for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 1:CD013855. [PMID: 33502759 PMCID: PMC8487162 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd013855] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Caries is one of the most prevalent and preventable conditions worldwide. If identified early enough then non-invasive techniques can be applied, and therefore this review focusses on early caries involving the enamel surface of the tooth. The cornerstone of caries detection and diagnosis is a visual and tactile dental examination, although alternative approaches are available. These include illumination-based devices that could potentially support the dental examination. There are three categories of illumination devices that exploit various methods of application and interpretation, each primarily defined by different wavelengths, optical coherence tomography (OCT), near-infrared (NIR), and fibre-optic technology, which incorporates more recently developed digital fibre optics (FOTI/DIFOTI). OBJECTIVES To estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of different illumination tests for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries in children or adults. We also planned to explore the following potential sources of heterogeneity: in vitro or in vivo studies with different reference standards; tooth surface (occlusal, proximal, smooth surface, or adjacent to a restoration); single or multiple sites of assessment on a tooth surface; and the prevalence of caries into dentine. SEARCH METHODS Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 15 February 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 15 February 2019). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA We included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared the use of illumination-based devices with a reference standard (histology, enhanced visual examination with or without radiographs, or operative excavation). These included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a single index test and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Both in vitro and in vivo studies of primary and permanent teeth were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that explicitly recruited participants with caries into dentine or frank cavitation. We also excluded studies that artificially created carious lesions and those that used an index test during the excavation of dental caries to ascertain the optimum depth of excavation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardised data extraction form and quality assessment based on QUADAS-2 specific to the clinical context. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy were determined using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary points of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence regions. The comparative accuracy of different illumination devices was conducted based on indirect and direct comparisons between methods. Potential sources of heterogeneity were pre-specified and explored visually and more formally through meta-regression. MAIN RESULTS We included 24 datasets from 23 studies that evaluated 16,702 tooth surfaces. NIR was evaluated in 6 datasets (673 tooth surfaces), OCT in 10 datasets (1171 tooth surfaces), and FOTI/DIFOTI in 8 datasets (14,858 tooth surfaces). The participant selection domain had the largest number of studies judged at high risk of bias (16 studies). Conversely, for the index test, reference standard, and flow and timing domains the majority of studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (16, 12, and 16 studies respectively). Concerns regarding the applicability of the evidence were judged as high or unclear for all domains. Notably, 14 studies were judged to be of high concern for participant selection, due to selective participant recruitment, a lack of independent examiners, and the use of an in vitro study design. The summary estimate across all the included illumination devices was sensitivity 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.85) and specificity 0.87 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.92), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 21.52 (95% CI 10.89 to 42.48). In a cohort of 1000 tooth surfaces with a prevalence of enamel caries of 57%, this would result in 142 tooth surfaces being classified as disease free when enamel caries was truly present (false negatives), and 56 tooth surfaces being classified as diseased in the absence of enamel caries (false positives). A formal comparison of the accuracy according to device type indicated a difference in sensitivity and/or specificity (Chi2(4) = 34.17, P < 0.01). Further analysis indicated a difference in the sensitivity of the different devices (Chi2(2) = 31.24, P < 0.01) with a higher sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) for OCT compared to NIR 0.58 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.68) and FOTI/DIFOTI 0.47 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.59), but no meaningful difference in specificity (Chi2(2) = 3.47, P = 0.18). In light of these results, we planned to formally assess potential sources of heterogeneity according to device type, but due to the limited number of studies for each device type we were unable to do so. For interpretation, we presented the coupled forest plots for each device type according to the potential source of heterogeneity. We rated the certainty of the evidence as low and downgraded two levels in total due to avoidable and unavoidable study limitations in the design and conduct of studies, indirectness arising from the in vitro studies, and imprecision of the estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Of the devices evaluated, OCT appears to show the most potential, with superior sensitivity to NIR and fibre-optic devices. Its benefit lies as an add-on tool to support the conventional oral examination to confirm borderline cases in cases of clinical uncertainty. OCT is not currently available to the general dental practitioner, and so further research and development are necessary. FOTI and NIR are more readily available and easy to use; however, they show limitations in their ability to detect enamel caries but may be considered successful in the identification of sound teeth. Future studies should strive to avoid research waste by ensuring that recruitment is conducted in such a way as to minimise selection bias and that studies are clearly and comprehensively reported. In terms of applicability, any future studies should be undertaken in a clinical setting that is reflective of the complexities encountered in caries assessment within the oral cavity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard Macey
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Tanya Walsh
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Philip Riley
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Richard Hogan
- Dental Health Unit, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Helen V Worthington
- Cochrane Oral Health, Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Janet E Clarkson
- Division of Oral Health Sciences, Dundee Dental School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|