A comparative study of two chemical models for creating subsurface caries lesions on aprismatic and prismatic enamel

PURPOSE

To investigate the mineral density and lesion depth of artificial caries lesions on aprismatic enamel and prismatic enamel created by lactic acid and acetic acid buffers.

METHODS

Forty bovine enamel blocks were allocated to: aprismatic enamel (Group A) and prismatic enamel (Group C) in acetic acid buffer for 192 h and aprismatic enamel (Group B) and prismatic enamel (Group D) in lactic acid buffer for 96 h. The mineral loss and lesion depth were measured using micro-computed tomography.

RESULTS

A significant difference (P = 0.01) was observed in the mineral loss (%) in the lesions on aprismatic enamel and prismatic enamel treated with lactic acid buffer while no significant difference (P = 0.51) was observed in the mineral loss (%) in the lesions on aprismatic enamel and prismatic enamel treated with acetic acid buffer. No significant difference was noted in the mean lesion depth of lesions on aprismatic enamel and prismatic enamel treated with acetic acid and lactic acid buffers (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Aprismatic enamel and prismatic enamel have similar mineral loss in acetic acid while prismatic enamel showed more mineral loss compared to aprismatic enamel in lactic acid.

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.