In vivo study of different methods for diagnosing pit and fissure caries

Sensitivity and specificity of the ICDAS II system and bitewing radiographs for detecting occlusal caries using the Spectra™ caries detection system as the reference test in children

BACKGROUND

Most studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of caries detection methods have been performed in vitro using the histological method as the gold standard showing inconsistent values. The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity in detecting occlusal caries using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS II) with the radiographic method (RM), while using the Spectra™ Caries Detection System (SCDS) as the reference test.

METHODS

One hundred sixty children, ages 7-12 years, participated in the study. Five zones in the occlusal surfaces of 859 primary and 632 first permanent molars were examined visually using ICDAS-II, the RM using bitewing radiographs and SCDS. The descriptive statistics of sensitivity and specificity were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

For all molars combined and for primary molars only, the sensitivity of ICDAS II was higher for detecting total caries (p < 0.001), caries in enamel (p < 0.001), and caries in dentin (p = 0.016), but it was not different for detecting caries in the dentin of permanent first molars (p = 0.214), and primary second molars (p = 0.761). The specificity of RM was higher for detecting total caries, caries in enamel for all molars combined and for permanent first molars (p < 0.001). For caries in dentin, the specificity of ICDAS II was higher for all molars combined and for primary molars only (p < 0.001). For total caries in primary molars only, and caries in dentin of permanent first molars only, the specificity was not different (p = 0.156 and p = 0.181 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of ICDAS II and RM changes depending on whether the carious lesion compromises the enamel or dentin, and if the caries detection is performed in the primary molars or permanent first molars.

In vivo effectiveness of visual inspection and laser fluorescence in the diagnosis of early pit-and-fissure carious lesions: A cross-sectional study in a group of Romanian children

General practitioners are still facing great challenges in the management of occlusal caries. Therefore, the development of better diagnostic protocols and assessment of caries activity might improve the results of nonoperative treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of visual inspection based on ICDAS-II (International Caries Detection and Assessment System) and DiagnoDent pen in the detection of pit-and-fissure early lesions in young permanent molars. The evaluation of 237 occlusal surfaces and caries risk assessment were performed in 96 children aged 7 to 15 years. The presence of pit-and-fissure noncavitated lesions was recorded using ICDAS-II scoring system and laser fluorescence. Statistical analysis was performed using McNemar test, with a level of significance of P < .05. The caries risk was measured for all participants. In 109 occlusal surfaces both methods identified enamel changes (46%) and in 62 cases both methods excluded the carious lesion (26.2%). The statistical analysis showed a significant moderate agreement between ICDAS-II code and DiagnoDent pen measurements (McNemar chi-squared statistic 9.5, P = .002 and Cohen kappa coefficient = 0.427). The majority of children (69.8%) had moderate caries risk and the most frequent risk factors recorded were sugar intake between meals, lack of regular dental control and poor oral hygiene. We concluded that ICDAS-II is a valuable and reliable diagnostic tool for early pit-and-fissure lesions and could be used alone during dental examination in children. The evaluation of caries risk should become clinical routine, as parameters belonging to high risk were frequently recorded in our study group.

Detection Methods for Early Caries Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim was to appraise the evidence on the performance of various means for the detection of incipient caries in vivo. Five databases of published and unpublished research were searched for studies from January 2000 to October 2019. Search terms included "early caries" and "caries detection." Inclusion criteria involved diagnostic test accuracy studies for early caries detection in permanent and primary teeth. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment in duplicate. The review protocol was a priori registered in the Open Science Framework. Of the initially 22,964 search results, 51 articles were included. For permanent teeth, when histologic examination was considered as the reference for occlusal surfaces, the sensitivity (Se) range appeared high for the DIAGNOdent Pen (DD Pen) at 0.81-0.89, followed by ICDAS-II at 0.62-1, DIAGNOdent (DD) at 0.48-1, and bitewing radiography (BW) at 0-0.29. The corresponding specificity (Sp) range was: DD Pen 0.71-0.8, ICDAS-II 0.5-0.84, DD 0.54-1, and BW 0.96-1. When operative intervention served as the reference for occlusal surfaces, again, the DD means valued the most promising results on Se: DD 0.7-0.96 and DD Pen 0.55-0.90, followed by ICDAS-II 0.25-0.93, and BW 0-0.83. The Sp range was: DD 0.54-1, DD Pen 0.71-1, ICDAS-II 0.44-1, and BW 0.6-1. For approximal surfaces, the Se was: BW 0.75-0.83, DD Pen 0.6, and ICDAS-II 0.54; the Sp was: BW 0.6-0.9, DD Pen 0.2, and ICDAS-II 1. For primary teeth, under the reference of histologic assessment, the Se range for occlusal surfaces was: DD 0.55-1, DD Pen 0.63-1, ICDAS-II 0.42-1, and BW 0.31-0.96; the respective Sp was: DD 0.5-1, DD Pen 0.44-1, ICDAS-II 0.61-1, and BW 0.79-0.98. For approximal surfaces, the Se range was: DD Pen 0.58-0.63, ICDAS-II 0.42-0.55, and BW 0.14-0.71. The corresponding Sp range was: DD Pen 0.85-0.87, ICDAS-II 0.73-0.93, and BW 0.79-0.98. Se and Sp values varied, due to the heterogeneity regarding the setting of individual studies. Evidently, robust conclusions cannot be drawn, and different diagnostic means should be used as adjuncts to clinical examination. In permanent teeth, visual examination may be enhanced by DD on occlusal surfaces and BW on approximal surfaces. In primary teeth, DD Pen may serve as a supplementary tool across all surfaces.

Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries

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.

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.

Occlusal Caries Detection and Diagnosis Using Visual ICDAS Criteria, Laser Fluorescence Measurements, and Near-Infrared Light Transillumination Images

OBJECTIVE

Current diagnostic tools for non-cavitated occlusal caries are not very reliable. For this reason, newer systems need to be developed. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of visual inspection (ICDAS-II), laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent pen), and the near-infrared transillumination technique (DIAGNOcam) in the detection of non-cavitated occlusal caries lesions under clinical and laboratory conditions in 90 third molar teeth planned for extraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety third molar teeth were firstly examined in clinical conditions, scored according to ICDAS-II criteria, and examined with DIAGNOdent pen and DIAGNOcam devices. After finishing the clinical examination, the teeth were re-evaluated shortly after the extractions with the same methods. Then, the teeth were sectioned for histological validation according to Downer's criteria. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were calculated based on the histological results.

RESULTS

For the D0-D1-4 threshold, the area under the ROC curve values ranged between 0.754 and 0.881 for all systems. Sensitivity values ranged between 80.5 and 96.1%, and specificity values ranged between 61.5 and 84.6% for the three caries detection methods. DIAGNOcam had the best correlation value (0.616) according to histological observations and demonstrated a sensitivity rate of 96.1%, a specificity rate of 61.5%, and an accuracy rate of 91.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

DIAGNOcam was found to be the most effective method for the diagnosis of occlusal caries without cavitation in permanent molar teeth.

Use of DIAGNOdent and VistaProof in diagnostic of Pre-Cavitated Caries Lesions-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To analyse the published evidence of the validity of DIAGNDOdent and VistaProof in diagnosing carious depths in pre-cavitated lesions. Material and methods: A systematic review was carried out after identifying a total of 184 articles, including 27 concerning the qualitative review and a subsequent meta-analysis. The quality of the studies was evaluated by using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: For DIAGNOdent, the sensitivity value was 0.77, the specificity value was 0.75 and AUC was 0.81 for the global meta-analyses. In relation to subgroups, the values estimated 0.85, 0.76 and 0.86, respectively, for the in vivo group and 0.71, 0.75 and 0.83 for the in vitro group. For VistaProof, sensitivity was 0.81, specificity 0.75 and AUC had a value of 0.80 in the global meta-analysis. For the subgroups, these were considered at 0.75, 0.81 and 0.89, respectively, for the in vivo group and 0.91, 0.74 and 0.76 for the in vitro group. Neither case presented publication bias when analysing the funnel plot, the classic fail-safe number and Egger’s intercept. Conclusion: Both VistaProof and DIAGNOdent are valid as they offer a moderate to high diagnostic effectiveness for dentine depth in pre-cavitated lesions.

Combined Near-Infrarred Light Transillumination and Direct Digital Radiography Increases Diagnostic In Approximal Caries

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical ability of Near-Infrared Light-Transillumination (NILT) for approximal dentinal caries detection and to compare with direct digital-radiography (DDR), as well as to determine whether the combination of both techniques improves the diagnostic capacity of the lesions. From 88 patients (over 18 years), 138 posterior teeth (76 molars and 62 premolars), that had approximal caries reached into dentine determined by DDR, were included. Lesion extension and DDR images were scored as follows: D0 = sound surface, D1/D2 = caries restricted to the outer/inner-half of the enamel, and D3/4 = caries restricted to the outer/inner-half of the dentin. Opening of the approximal surface using 0.5 mm-in-diameter diamond-bar was used as gold-standard. The lesion extension was then determined by the following criteria: no dentinal caries (D0/1/2) or dentinal caries (D3/4). Seventy-one lesions were D3 and 67 lesions were D4. Sensitivities of overall/D3/D4 were 98.0/95.7/100.0 (NILT) and 100/100/100 (DDR), respectively. Correlations with gold-standard were 0.92 (NILT) and 0.42 (DDR), respectively. The correlation increased to 0.97 (p = 0.045) on combining NILT and DDR. There was no difference in sensitivity between the methods (p > 0.05); but was differences in the correlation (p < 0.01). It can be concluded that NILT showed sensitivity similar to that of DDR and higher correlation than DDR for approximal dentinal caries detection. Accordingly, it may be used to monitor the progression of caries without exposing the patient to ionizing radiation, this being of particular interest in growing patients and in pregnant women. In this respect, NILT can be an effective diagnostic tool adjunctive to bitewing radiographs in detecting approximal dentinal caries. The combination of NILT and DDR represents an increase in the diagnosis of approximal lesions The proposed diagnostic protocol comprises visual examination, followed by NILT and DDR only if the former technique detects approximal caries.

Clinical evaluation of near-infrared light transillumination in approximal dentin caries detection

The objective of this clinical study was to compare conventional caries detection techniques, pen-type laser fluorescence device, and near-infrared light transillumination method in approximal dentin caries lesions. The study included 157 patients, aged 12-18, without any cavity in the posterior teeth. Two calibrated examiners carried out the assessments of selected approximal caries sites independently. After the assessments, the unopened sites were excluded and a total of 161 approximal sites were included in the study. When both the examiners arrived at a consensus regarding the presence of dentin caries, the detected lesions were opened with a conical diamond burr, the cavity extent was examined and validated (gold standard). Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, accuracy, and area under the ROC curve (Az) values among the caries detection methods were calculated. Bitewing radiography and near-infrared (NIR) light transillumination methods showed the highest sensitivity (0.83-0.82) and accuracy (0.82-0.80) among the methods. Visual inspection showed the lowest sensitivity (0.54). Laser fluorescence device and visual inspection showed nearly equal performance. Near-infrared light transillumination can be used as an alternative method to approximal dentin caries detection. Visual inspection and laser fluorescence device alone should not be used for approximal dentin caries.