A clinical study of a laser fluorescence device for the detection of approximal caries in primary molars

Visual or visual-tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries

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.

The validity of laser fluorescence (LF) and near-infrared reflection (NIRR) in detecting early proximal cavities

OBJECTIVES

Diagnosing cavitated proximal lesions is important for therapeutic decisions. This clinical study aimed to determine the validity of laser fluorescence (LF) and near-infrared reflection (NIRR) techniques for detecting early proximal cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 43 proximal surfaces in 15 females who had limited radiolucent lesions in their bitewing radiographs. The approximal areas of interest were assessed by DIAGNOdent Pen (LF) and the Proxi interchangeable head of VistaCam iX intraoral camera (NIRR). Finally, orthodontic separators were placed in the contact points to provide enough space between the teeth. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosing cavitated proximal surfaces were calculated for LF and NIRR against direct visual and tactile examination as the reference standard.

RESULTS

On the basis of the reference standard, 34 surfaces (79.1%) were not cavitated, whereas 9 surfaces (20.9%) were cavitated and in need of restoration. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of LF were 44.4%, 61.8%, and 58%, and those of NIRR were 88.9%, 14.7%, and 30%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The VistaCam iX Proxi was more sensitive and DIAGNOdent Pen was more specific in detection of proximal cavities. However, none of the techniques was accurate enough to be recommended as a sole approach for proximal caries detection.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

LF showed an overall superior diagnostic performance to NIRR for diagnosing proximal cavitation in permanent posterior teeth. Within the limitations of this study, neither VistaCam iX Proxi nor DIAGNOdent Pen could be considered a suitable device for diagnosing proximal cavities.

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.

Accurate Detection of Non-Cavitated Proximal Caries in Posterior Permanent Teeth: An in vivo Study

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of DIAGNOdent versus bitewing radiographs in detecting non-cavitated proximal caries.

Patients and Methods

This observational prospective study included 120 proximal surfaces, without obvious cavitation, on permanent mandibular and maxillary posterior teeth in patients over 16 years old. The DIAGNOdent test was performed, and digital bitewing radiographs were obtained; these were compared with a standard reference method, which comprised a clinical assessment of the proximal surfaces following the application of an orthodontic separator between the teeth for 7 days. Each test was performed by a different investigator blinded to the assessment results of the other examiners.

Results

The DIAGNOdent device exhibited a higher sensitivity in detecting enamel proximal caries (95%) than digital bitewing radiographs (64%), and the specificity of DIAGNOdent (89%) was greater than that of bitewing radiographs (77%). Regarding the detection of dentin caries, the sensitivities of DIAGNOdent and bitewing radiographs were similar (both 62%); however, the specificity of DIAGNOdent was higher (98% versus 88%). The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a significant difference in DIAGNOdent scores across the three diagnoses (sound tooth surfaces, enamel caries, dentin caries) (p-value <0.001).

Conclusion

The diagnostic accuracy of DIAGNOdent in detecting enamel caries is significantly higher than that of digital bitewing radiography. The routine use of DIAGNOdent can facilitate an accurate diagnosis of early carious lesions and inform the implementation of preventive treatment.

In vivo validity of proximal caries detection in primary teeth, with histological validation

BACKGROUND

Detection and diagnosis of proximal caries in primary molars are challenging.

AIM

The aim of this in vivo study was to assess the validity and reproducibility of four methods of proximal caries detection in primary molar teeth.

DESIGN

Eighty-two children (5-10 years) were recruited. Initially, 1030 proximal surfaces were examined using meticulous visual examination (ICDAS) (VE1), bitewing radiographs (RE), and a laser fluorescence pen device (LF1). Temporary tooth separation (TTS) was achieved for 447 surfaces, and these were re-examined visually (VE2) and using the LF pen (LF2). Three hundred and fifty-six teeth (542 surfaces) were subsequently extracted and provided histological validation.

RESULTS

At D₁ (enamel and dentine caries) diagnostic threshold, the sensitivity of VE1, RE, VE2, LF1, and LF2 examination was 0.52, 0.14, 0.75, 0.58, and 0.60 and the specificity values were 0.89, 0.97, 0.88, 0.85, and 0.77, respectively. At D₃ (dentine caries) threshold, the sensitivity values were 0.42, 0.71, 0.49, 0.63, and 0.65, respectively, whereas specificity was 0.93 for VE1 and VE2, and 0.98, 0.87, and 0.88 for RE, LF1, and LF2 examinations, respectively. ROC analysis showed radiographic examination to be superior at D₃ .

CONCLUSION

Meticulous caries diagnosis (ICDAS) should be supported by radiographs for detection of dentinal proximal caries in primary molars.

Accuracy of pen-type laser fluorescence device and radiographic methods in detecting approximal carious lesions in primary teeth - an in vivo study

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of approximal lesions is limited due to the difficulty of direct examination of these areas.

AIM

To determine the accuracy of pen-type laser fluorescence (LFpen) device, compared to digital bitewing (BW) radiography, in diagnosing approximal carious lesions in posterior primary teeth at cavitation and non-cavitation thresholds.

DESIGN

A total of 46 children (aged 3-9 years) were assessed and 195 approximal surfaces of 184 primary molars were examined by digital BW and LFpen. Visual-tactile inspection based on the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS-II) was used as the reference standard. All examinations were performed by the same examiner. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated between LFpen and BW readings and the reference standard.

RESULTS

Sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 81.8, 86.7, and 0.84 for BW and 49.1, 87.9, and 0.69 for LFpen both at non-cavitation thresholds. At cavitation thresholds, BW showed higher specificity (96.0), sensitivity (93.0), and AUC (0.98) than did LFpen (72.0, 86.9, and 0.82, respectively), but a lower correlation was indicated by LFpen readings.

CONCLUSION

Bitewing had a better diagnostic accuracy and significantly outperformed LFpen in the detection of non-cavitated lesions. Similar results were obtained by the two methods at the cavitation threshold.

The diagnostic accuracy of a laser fluorescence device and digital radiography in detecting approximal caries lesions in posterior permanent teeth: an in vivo study

The aim of this in vivo study was to test the diagnostic accuracy of a pen-type laser fluorescence (LFpen) device in detecting approximal caries lesions, in posterior permanent teeth, at the cavitation and non-cavitation thresholds, and compare it with that of digital bitewing radiography. Thirty patients (aged 18-37), who attended the Faculty of Dentistry at Damascus University for a dental examination, were consecutively screened. Ninety approximal surfaces of posterior permanent teeth without frank cavitations, enamel hypoplasia or restorations were selected and examined using the LFpen (DIAGNOdent pen) and digital bitewing radiography. The reference standard was the visual-tactile inspection, after performing temporary tooth separation, using orthodontic rubber rings, placed for 7 days. The status of included approximal surfaces was recorded as intact/sound, with white/brown spots or cavitated. One trained examiner performed all examinations. There were statistically significant differences in LFpen readings between the three types of approximal surface status (P < 0.001). The optimal cut-off values for detecting approximal caries lesions in posterior permanent teeth were >16 and 8 at the cavitation and non-cavitation thresholds respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (measured by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve) were 100, 85 and 95 and 92, 90 and 95% at the cavitation and non-cavitation thresholds respectively. The intra-class correlation coefficient for intra-examiner reliability was 0.95. The diagnostic accuracy of the LFpen was significantly higher than that of digital bitewing radiography (P < 0.001). The LFpen's diagnostic performance was accurate and significantly better than digital bitewing radiography in detecting approximal caries lesions, in posterior permanent teeth.

Pen-type laser fluorescence device versus bitewing radiographs for caries detection on approximal surfaces

Background

The accurate detection of approximal caries is generally difficult. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of the pen-type laser fluorescence device (LF pen) to detect approximal carious lesions in comparison to bitewing radiographs (BW).

Methods

Three hundred forty-one tooth surfaces were diagnosed in 20 patients with an average age of 26.70 (±2.82) years. Each test tooth was sequentially assessed by a single calibrated examiner using visual inspection, BW, and the LF pen. Radiographs were used as the gold standard to calculate an appropriate cut-off.

Results

Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy values for cut-off limits of 15, measured by the LF pen were compared using the chi² test (McNemar test). For approximal caries at D3 level, the highest values of specificity and sensitivity were observed for the LF pen at a cut-off value of 15 (96.8 and 83.0 %) and for visual inspection (99.3 and 4.3 %).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, dentin caries on approximal surfaces could be detected equally well by the LF pen as by the bitewing radiographs. Therefore, the LF pen can be recommended as an alternative to radiographs for the detection of approximal caries in a regular dental practice setting.

Trial registration

DRKS00004817 on DRKS on 12^th March 2013.

Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection

Background/purpose

Detection of approximal caries may be difficult using conventional methods including visual inspection (VI) and radiography. The purpose of this in vitro research was to evaluate the efficiency of light-emitting diode (LED) and laser fluorescence (LF) devices, and radiographic and visual examination in approximal caries diagnosis.

Materials and methods

One hundred and fifty-six approximal regions were evaluated. All approximal regions were investigated using LED and LF tools after radiography and VI were performed. Histological evaluation of teeth was performed using stereomicroscopy. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and accuracy, specificity, sensitivity values calculated regarding approximal caries diagnose.

Results

The specificity of the bitewing examination was higher for both T1 and T2 thresholds (0.97 and 0.99, respectively), and the LF device showed better sensitivity at each threshold compared with the other devices used for caries diagnosis (0.94 at T1 and 0.79 at T2). The receiver operating characteristic curves presented that the LF device was more successful than the other techniques at T1 threshold and VI was better than the other caries detection methods at T2 threshold. The kappa values for interobserver agreements were 0.43 (LF pen), 0.33 (LED device), 0.55 (VI), and 0.75 (bitewing examination).

Conclusion

The ability of bitewing radiography to identify sound surfaces was better than that of the other methods. The LF device was the most sensitive tool for detecting approximal surfaces with caries, followed by the LED device.

Effect of Different Contact Materials on Approximal Caries Detection by Laser Fluorescence and Light-Emitting Diode Devices

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of the adjacent tooth surface on pen type laser fluorescence (LFpen) and light-emitting diode (LED) device readings in detecting approximal caries lesions in permanent teeth.

BACKGROUND DATA

Early detection of noncavitated dental caries is important, because disease progression can be easily halted at this stage with certain applications, such as fluoride therapy, antibacterial therapy, dietary changes, or low-intensity laser irradiation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 87 permanent molars with 156 approximal surfaces were assessed with LED- and LF-based devices in contact with sound tooth surfaces (the control group) as well as approximal amalgam, composite, zirconia, and full ceramic restorations. All teeth were assessed once by one trained examiner. After the LF and LED assessments, the teeth were histologically evaluated using stereomicroscopy as the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve were calculated according to the appropriate thresholds (T1, sound surface or enamel caries; T2, dentin caries).

RESULTS

For the LFpen device, higher sensitivity and accuracy was found when the adjacent surface was sound at the T1 threshold and no significant differences were found among accuracy at the T2 threshold. For the LED-based device, no significant differences were found among sensitivities at the T1 threshold. At the T2 threshold, specificity was higher when the adjacent tooth had a zirconia restoration.

CONCLUSIONS

It was found that both devices could be used effectively for evaluating approximal surfaces with adjacent restored teeth, regardless of the different kinds of restorative materials.

Proximal caries lesion detection in primary teeth: does this justify the association of diagnostic methods?

The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate and compare the performance of visual exam with use of the Nyvad criteria (visual examination - (VE)), interproximal radiography (BW), laser fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent Pen-DDPen), and their association in the diagnosis of proximal lesions in primary teeth. For this purpose, 45 children (n = 59 surfaces) of both sexes, aged between 5 and 9 years were selected, who presented healthy primary molars or primary molars with signs suggestive of the presence of caries lesions. The surfaces were clinically evaluated and coded according to the Nyvad criteria and immediately afterwards with the DDPen. Radiographic exam was performed only on the surfaces coded with Nyvad scores 2, 3, 5, or 6. Active caries lesions and/or those with discontinuous surfaces were restored, considering the depth of lesion as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under ROC curve were calculated for each technique and its associations. Visual exam with Nyvad criteria presented the highest specificity, accuracy, and area under ROC curve values. The DDPen presented the highest sensitivity values. Association with one or more methods resulted in an increase in specificity. The performance of visual, radiographic, and DDpen exams and their associations were good; however, the clinical examination with the Nyvad criteria was sufficient for the diagnosis of interproximal lesions in primary teeth.

Obtaining artificially caries-affected dentin for in vitro studies

AIM

This study evaluated and improved a protocol for obtaining standard caries-affected dentin (CAD) by Streptococcus mutans biofilm demineralization process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight human molars were divided in six experimental groups, according to: period of cariogenic challenge (7, 14 or 21 days) and type of dentin (erupted or unerupted teeth). After complete cariogenic challenge sound and CAD dentin were evaluated by: visual inspection (VI), digital radiography (DR), optical coherence tomography (OCT) and laser fluorescence (LF).

RESULTS

Visual inspection confirmed the formation of CAD based on tissue yellowing and loss of surface gloss. Digital radiography detected the presence of radiolucent images, suggesting caries. Three calibrated examiners viewed all images obtained by VI and DR and were able to distinguish healthy from CAD. Fisher's exact statistical test (p < 0.05) confirmed no difference between groups by VI (G1/G4: p = 0.6; G2/G5: p = 1; G3/G6: p = 1) or DR (G1/G4: p = 1; G2/G5: p = 1; G3/G6: p = 1). Both LF values and demineralization depth, as determined by OCT, were subjected to ANOVA (p < 0.05). For LF, a statistically significant difference was observed for the type of substrate (p = 0.001). For OCT, no statistically significant differences in the type of substrate (p = 0.163), length of cariogenic challenge (p = 0.512) or interaction between factors (p = 0.148) were observed. Scanning electron micrographs confirmed the presence of CAD; a more uniform demineralization surface was observed in the dentin of unerupted teeth.

CONCLUSION

This protocol suggests that standard CAD can be obtained in 7 days of cariogenic challenge using unerupted teeth. Clinical significance: With the new perspective on the clinical treatment of caries lesions, bonding is increasingly performed to demineralize CAD, which is susceptible to remineralization. A useful protocol to standardize the production of CAD, by microbiological cariogenic challenge, would be an important contribution to laboratorial test in the field of operative dentistry.

A pilot study of a modified radiographic technique for detecting early proximal cavities

Diagnosing the necessity of cavity preparation in demineralized proximal areas has been considered as a challenge in restorative treatment planning. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical performance of a modified radiographic technique for the detection of proximal cavities. The sample consisted of 44 proximal surfaces in 38 dental students. The patients had radiolucent proximal lesions restricted to the inner half of enamel or the outer third of dentine in bitewing radiographs, and there was doubt regarding the presence or absence of cavities in the approximal areas. The suspected surfaces were then examined by secondary bitewing radiographs which were taken after pressing radiopaque material into the proximal areas. Finally, orthodontic elastic separators were placed in the contact areas to provide enough space for direct visual and tactile examination, thus detecting any proximal cavity (reference standard). The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the modified bitewing radiography were calculated against the reference standard. Overall, 7 surfaces presented caries cavities according to the reference standard. All proximal radiolucencies observed in the inner half of enamel and 46% of those extended to the outer third of dentine were not cavitated when evaluated by direct visual and tactile examination. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of bitewing radiography with opaque material for detecting proximal cavities (n = 7) were 86, 100 and 98%, respectively. The tested radiographic technique displayed good validity in this pilot study for detecting proximal cavities in posterior teeth and should be further investigated.

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.

Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity

BACKGROUND

Fluorescence-based methods have been proposed to aid caries lesion detection. Summarizing and analysing findings of studies about fluorescence-based methods could clarify their real benefits.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to perform a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of fluorescence-based methods in detecting caries lesions.

DATA SOURCE

Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus through June 2012 to identify papers/articles published. Other sources were checked to identify non-published literature. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND DIAGNOSTIC METHODS: The eligibility criteria were studies that: (1) have assessed the accuracy of fluorescence-based methods of detecting caries lesions on occlusal, approximal or smooth surfaces, in both primary or permanent human teeth, in the laboratory or clinical setting; (2) have used a reference standard; and (3) have reported sufficient data relating to the sample size and the accuracy of methods.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

A diagnostic 2×2 table was extracted from included studies to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy parameters (Diagnostic Odds Ratio and Summary Receiver-Operating curve). The analyses were performed separately for each method and different characteristics of the studies. The quality of the studies and heterogeneity were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy five studies met the inclusion criteria from the 434 articles initially identified. The search of the grey or non-published literature did not identify any further studies. In general, the analysis demonstrated that the fluorescence-based method tend to have similar accuracy for all types of teeth, dental surfaces or settings. There was a trend of better performance of fluorescence methods in detecting more advanced caries lesions. We also observed moderate to high heterogeneity and evidenced publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluorescence-based devices have similar overall performance; however, better accuracy in detecting more advanced caries lesions has been observed.