The Effect of Pit and Fissure Sealants on the Detection of Occlusal Caries in vitro

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries

AIM

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of commonly used methods for occlusal caries diagnostics, such as visual examination (VE), bitewing radiography (BW) and laser fluorescence (LF), in relation to their ability to detect (dentin) caries under clinical and laboratory conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was performed to identify studies meeting the inclusion criteria using the PIRDS concept (N = 1090). A risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool was used for quality evaluation. Reports with low/moderate RoB, well-matching thresholds for index and reference tests and appropriate reporting were included in the meta-analysis (N = 37; 29 in vivo/8 in vitro). The pooled sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and areas under ROC curves (AUCs) were computed.

RESULTS

SP ranged from 0.50 (fibre-optic transillumination/caries detection level) to 0.97 (conventional BW/dentine detection level) in vitro. AUCs were typically higher for BW or LF than for VE. The highest AUC of 0.89 was observed for VE at the 1/3 dentin caries detection level; SE (0.70) was registered to be higher than SP (0.47) for VE at the caries detection level in vivo.

CONCLUSION

The number of included studies was found to be low. This underlines the need for high-quality caries diagnostic studies that further provide data in relation to multiple caries thresholds.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

VE, BW and LF provide acceptable measures for their diagnostic performance on occlusal surfaces, but the results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited data in many categories.

Transillumination and optical coherence tomography for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries

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.

Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries

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 is a visual and tactile dental examination, however alternative methods of detection are available, and these include fluorescence-based devices. There are three categories of fluorescence-based device each primarily defined by the different wavelengths they exploit; we have labelled these groups as red, blue, and green fluorescence. These devices could support the visual examination for the detection and diagnosis of caries at an early stage of decay.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objectives were to estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of fluorescence-based devices for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries in children or adults. We planned to investigate the following potential sources of heterogeneity: tooth surface (occlusal, proximal, smooth surface or adjacent to a restoration); single point measurement devices versus imaging or surface assessment devices; and the prevalence of more severe disease in each study sample, at the level of caries into dentine.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 30 May 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 30 May 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 30 May 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 30 May 2019). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared a fluorescence-based device with a reference standard. This included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of single index tests and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Studies that explicitly recruited participants with caries into dentine or frank cavitation 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 has been displayed as coupled forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) plots, displaying the sensitivity-specificity points for each study. We estimated diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) methods. We reported sensitivities at fixed values of specificity (median 0.78, upper quartile 0.90).

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 133 studies, 55 did not report data in the 2 x 2 format and could not be included in the meta-analysis. 79 studies which provided 114 datasets and evaluated 21,283 tooth surfaces were included in the meta-analysis. There was a high risk of bias for the participant selection domain. The index test, reference standard, and flow and timing domains all showed a high proportion of studies to be at low risk of bias. Concerns regarding the applicability of the evidence were high or unclear for all domains, the highest proportion being seen in participant selection. Selective participant recruitment, poorly defined diagnostic thresholds, and in vitro studies being non-generalisable to the clinical scenario of a routine dental examination were the main reasons for these findings. The dominance of in vitro studies also means that the information on how the results of these devices are used to support diagnosis, as opposed to pure detection, was extremely limited. There was substantial variability in the results which could not be explained by the different devices or dentition or other sources of heterogeneity that we investigated. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 14.12 (95% CI 11.17 to 17.84). The estimated sensitivity, at a fixed median specificity of 0.78, was 0.70 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.75). In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 tooth sites or surfaces, with a prevalence of enamel caries of 57%, obtained from the included studies, the estimated sensitivity of 0.70 and specificity of 0.78 would result in 171 missed tooth sites or surfaces with enamel caries (false negatives) and 95 incorrectly classed as having early caries (false positives). We used meta-regression to compare the accuracy of the different devices for red fluorescence (84 datasets, 14,514 tooth sites), blue fluorescence (21 datasets, 3429 tooth sites), and green fluorescence (9 datasets, 3340 tooth sites) devices. Initially, we allowed threshold, shape, and accuracy to vary according to device type by including covariates in the model. Allowing consistency of shape, removal of the covariates for accuracy had only a negligible effect (Chi2 = 3.91, degrees of freedom (df) = 2, P = 0.14). Despite the relatively large volume of evidence we rated the certainty of the evidence as low, 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 high number of in vitro studies, and inconsistency due to the substantial variability of results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in the performance of these fluorescence-based devices that could not be explained by the different wavelengths of the devices assessed, participant, or study characteristics. Blue and green fluorescence-based devices appeared to outperform red fluorescence-based devices but this difference was not supported by the results of a formal statistical comparison. The evidence base was considerable, but we were only able to include 79 studies out of 133 in the meta-analysis as estimates of sensitivity or specificity values or both could not be extracted or derived. In terms of applicability, any future studies should be carried out in a clinical setting, where difficulties of caries assessment within the oral cavity include plaque, staining, and restorations. Other considerations include the potential of fluorescence devices to be used in combination with other technologies and comparative diagnostic accuracy studies.

Effect of pit and fissure sealants on caries detection by a fluorescent camera system

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sealant placement on the detection of caries by a fluorescent camera (FC), the Spectra caries detector.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a laboratory study, FC images and readings were obtained from 31 extracted teeth, before and following application of clear sealants (Shofu Clear or Delton unfilled), or opaque sealants (3M Clinpro or Delton FS). Teeth were then sectioned and examined for enamel or dentine caries. Using each tooth's true caries diagnosis, the sensitivity and specificity of the FC measurements in detecting dentine caries was calculated. In the clinical study, FC readings were obtained from 41 molars in children prior to and following application of clear sealants.

RESULTS

Following application of Shofu or Delton unfilled there were reductions in the mean FC readings of 10% (p=0.5) and 8.2% (p=0.009), respectively. Application of two opaque sealants, 3M or Delton FS significantly reduced mean FC readings 16.2% and 20.8% (p<0.5), respectively. Although the carious lesions could still be observed in FC images from teeth with opaque sealants there was a significant loss of sensitivity in detecting dentinal caries. Clear sealant application caused an insignificant loss of detection sensitivity. Following application of clear sealants to children's molars there was a small (4.01%) but significant (p<0.01) reduction in FC readings recorded from these teeth.

CONCLUSIONS

The FC can detect caries under clear sealants with little loss of sensitivity. Although lesions can be seen through opaque sealants, loss of sensitivity precludes accurate lesion assessment.

Adjunct methods for caries detection: a systematic review of literature

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of adjunct methods used to detect and quantify dental caries.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic literature search for relevant papers was conducted with pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Abstracts and full text articles were assessed independently by two reviewers. The study characteristics were compiled in tables and quality graded according to the QUADAS tool. The level of evidence for each diagnostic technology (fiber-optic methods, fluorescence methods, electrical methods) was based on studies of high or moderate quality according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Twenty-five reports fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One study was of high quality, 10 were graded as moderate, while the remaining 14 reports were of low quality. Electrical methods (ECM) and laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) displayed sensitivities and specificities around 70-80% regarding occlusal dentin lesions with a mean Youden's index of 0.52-0.54. The mean accuracy of laser fluorescence for detecting enamel and dentin lesions was 0.68 and 0.91, respectively. The heterogeneity of the published reports hampered the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient scientific evidence for diagnostic accuracy regarding fiber-optic methods and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (+OOO). The electrical methods and laser fluorescence could be useful adjuncts to visual-tactile and radiographic examinations, especially on occlusal surfaces in permanent and primary molars, but evidence was graded as limited (++OO). No conclusions could be drawn regarding the cost-effectiveness of the methods. There is an obvious need to standardize study designs for in vitro and in vivo validation of the different methods.