Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study
Abstract Objectives To assess the validity of light-induced and laser-induced fluorescence devices compared to the visual-tactile method for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. Materials and Methods The study included 20 participants with 30 resin-composite restored teeth...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Publishing Group
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | BDJ Open |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-024-00284-7 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1841544382005641216 |
|---|---|
| author | Aya Mohamed Adly Shereen Hafez Ibrahim Amira Farid El-Zoghbi |
| author_facet | Aya Mohamed Adly Shereen Hafez Ibrahim Amira Farid El-Zoghbi |
| author_sort | Aya Mohamed Adly |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objectives To assess the validity of light-induced and laser-induced fluorescence devices compared to the visual-tactile method for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. Materials and Methods The study included 20 participants with 30 resin-composite restored teeth. Restorations’ margins were examined using three diagnostic methods: the visual-tactile method (FDI criteria), the light-induced fluorescence camera (VistaCam iX), and the laser-induced fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent pen), and the reference was visual inspection after removal of defective restorations. The validity of each method was evaluated. Inter-examiner reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa statistics. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05. Results DIAGNOdent pen showed the highest sensitivity (100%) followed by VistaCam (98.82%) and the visual-tactile method (98.82%) at the enamel threshold. DIAGNOdent pen and VistaCam had lower specificity values than the visual-tactile method (81.69%, 76.06%, and 88.73% respectively). At the dentin threshold, DIAGNOdent pen yielded the highest sensitivity (89.36%), whereas VistaCam had the lowest (8.51%). The sensitivity of the visual-tactile method was low (57.45%) whereas all diagnostic methods had high specificity. There was perfect agreement in inter-examiner reliability for all assessment methods (Kappa 0.858–0.992). Conclusions Both fluorescence-based devices and the visual-tactile method are reliable for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. DIAGNOdent pen is accurate in enamel and dentin, while VistaCam and the visual-tactile method can detect secondary caries in enamel only. Clinical Relevance Fluorescence-based devices could be used as a valuable aid to supplement or as a second opinion after the visual-tactile method. Trial registration The study was listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov with registration number (NCT04426604) on 11/06/2020. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-bc189587f99f4664929f9ecfcbc49c37 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2056-807X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Nature Publishing Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BDJ Open |
| spelling | doaj-art-bc189587f99f4664929f9ecfcbc49c372025-01-12T12:36:46ZengNature Publishing GroupBDJ Open2056-807X2025-01-0111111110.1038/s41405-024-00284-7Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy studyAya Mohamed Adly0Shereen Hafez Ibrahim1Amira Farid El-Zoghbi2Assistant lecturer at Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo UniversityProfessor of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo UniversityProfessor of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo UniversityAbstract Objectives To assess the validity of light-induced and laser-induced fluorescence devices compared to the visual-tactile method for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. Materials and Methods The study included 20 participants with 30 resin-composite restored teeth. Restorations’ margins were examined using three diagnostic methods: the visual-tactile method (FDI criteria), the light-induced fluorescence camera (VistaCam iX), and the laser-induced fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent pen), and the reference was visual inspection after removal of defective restorations. The validity of each method was evaluated. Inter-examiner reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa statistics. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05. Results DIAGNOdent pen showed the highest sensitivity (100%) followed by VistaCam (98.82%) and the visual-tactile method (98.82%) at the enamel threshold. DIAGNOdent pen and VistaCam had lower specificity values than the visual-tactile method (81.69%, 76.06%, and 88.73% respectively). At the dentin threshold, DIAGNOdent pen yielded the highest sensitivity (89.36%), whereas VistaCam had the lowest (8.51%). The sensitivity of the visual-tactile method was low (57.45%) whereas all diagnostic methods had high specificity. There was perfect agreement in inter-examiner reliability for all assessment methods (Kappa 0.858–0.992). Conclusions Both fluorescence-based devices and the visual-tactile method are reliable for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. DIAGNOdent pen is accurate in enamel and dentin, while VistaCam and the visual-tactile method can detect secondary caries in enamel only. Clinical Relevance Fluorescence-based devices could be used as a valuable aid to supplement or as a second opinion after the visual-tactile method. Trial registration The study was listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov with registration number (NCT04426604) on 11/06/2020.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-024-00284-7 |
| spellingShingle | Aya Mohamed Adly Shereen Hafez Ibrahim Amira Farid El-Zoghbi Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study BDJ Open |
| title | Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study |
| title_full | Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study |
| title_fullStr | Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study |
| title_short | Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study |
| title_sort | clinical validity of fluorescence based devices versus visual tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations diagnostic accuracy study |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-024-00284-7 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ayamohamedadly clinicalvalidityoffluorescencebaseddevicesversusvisualtactilemethodindetectionofsecondarycariesaroundresincompositerestorationsdiagnosticaccuracystudy AT shereenhafezibrahim clinicalvalidityoffluorescencebaseddevicesversusvisualtactilemethodindetectionofsecondarycariesaroundresincompositerestorationsdiagnosticaccuracystudy AT amirafaridelzoghbi clinicalvalidityoffluorescencebaseddevicesversusvisualtactilemethodindetectionofsecondarycariesaroundresincompositerestorationsdiagnosticaccuracystudy |