The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Accuracy of the Light-induced Fluorescent Intraoral Camera in Occlusal Caries Detection

Nora AA Alzayyat, Randa M Hafez, Asmaa A Yassen, Shereen H Ibrahim

Keywords : Caries detection, Fluorescence camera, Initial caries, International caries detection and assessment system-II, Occlusal caries

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3082

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of a light-induced fluorescence intraoral camera vs the visual–tactile assessment method according to the modified International caries detection and assessment system-II (ICDAS-II) criteria clinically in the detection of initial occlusal caries. Materials and methods: Occlusal surfaces of 260 molar and premolar teeth from 52 adult participants were examined by two calibrated observers, using two diagnostic methods. Teeth were initially assessed visually according to the criteria of the ICDAS-II, and then by fluorescence camera (Soprolife®). Inter- and intraobserver agreements were measured using Cohen\'s kappa test. Correlation between methods was calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and effect size for comparison between the two modalities. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, diagnostic accuracy, likelihood ratios (LRs), area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the AUC for caries detection by Soprolife® were evaluated. Results: A significant positive correlation was found between the ICDAS-II and camera measurements (p-value <0.001, effect size = 0.572). The sensitivity of Soprolife® was 94.2%, specificity 84.2%, positive predictive value 87.1%, negative predictive value 92.8%, positive LR 6%, negative LR 0.07%, and the diagnostic accuracy 89.5%. AUC was 0.909 with 95% CI (0.863–0.955). There was a perfect intraobserver agreement (kappa = 1.00) for both testing modalities. There was moderate interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.520) with regards to ICDAS, while for Soprolife®, there was substantial interobserver agreement (kappa = 0.798). Conclusion: Soprolife® can be used as a valid and reliable assessment tool for occlusal caries detection. Clinical significance: Light-induced fluorescence intraoral camera is an efficient tool in the detection of initial occlusal caries.


PDF Share
  1. Gomez J, Zakian C, Salsone S, et al. In vitro performance of different methods in detecting occlusal caries lesions. J Dent 2012;41(2):180-186. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.003.
  2. Zeitouny M, Feghali M, Nasr A, et al. SOPROLIFE system: an accurate diagnostic enhancer. Sci World J 2014;2014:924741. DOI:10.1155/2014/924741.
  3. Theocharopoulou A, Lagerweij MD, van Strijp AJ. Use of the ICDAS system and two fluorescence-based intraoral devices for examination of occlusal surfaces. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2015;16(1):51-55.
  4. Gomez J. Detection and diagnosis of the early caries lesion. BMC Oral Health 2015;15(Suppl 1):S3. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-15-S1-S3.
  5. Unal M, Kockanat A, Guler S, et al. Diagnostic performance of different methods in detecting incipient non-cavitated occlusal caries lesions in permanent teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019;43(3):173-179. DOI:10.17796/1053-4625-43.3.5.
  6. Presoto CD, Trevisan TC, Andrade MC, et al. Clinical effectiveness of fluorescence, digital images and ICDAS for detecting occlusal caries. Rev Odontol UNESP 2017;46(2):109-115. DOI:10.1590/1807-2577.12416.
  7. Bhoopathi PH, Patil PU, Kamath BV, et al. Caries detection with ICDAS and the WHO criteria: a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(12):ZC09.ZC12. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/29017.10929.
  8. Lussi A, Longbottom C, Gygax M, et al. Influence of professional cleaning and drying of occlusal surfaces on laser fluorescence in vivo. Caries Res 2005;39(4):284-286. DOI: 10.1159/000084835.
  9. Al-Khalifa KS. Use of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System by dental students at the University of Dammam, Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Dent Res 2016;7(1):38-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.sjdr.2015.03.001.
  10. Jablonski]Momeni A, Heinzel]Gutenbrunner M, Vill G. Use of a fluorescence]based camera for monitoring occlusal surfaces of primary and permanent teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent 2016;26(6):448-456. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12216.
  11. Peycheva K, Boteva E. A comparison of different methods for fissure caries detection. Acta Med Bulg 2016;43(1):30-38. DOI: 10.1515/amb- 2016-0004.
  12. Gugnani N, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. International caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS): a new concept. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;4(2):93-100. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1089.
  13. Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M, et al. The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS): an integrated system for measuring dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007;35(3):170-178. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00347.x.
  14. Diniz MB, Rodrigues JA, Hug I, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of the ICDAS]II for occlusal caries detection. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2009;37(5):399-404. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2009.00487.x.
  15. Bhumireddy JR, Challa R, Mallineni SK, et al. Comparison of International Caries Detection and Assessment System and digital radiographs for detecting occlusal dental caries: an in vivo study. Eur J Gen Dent 2018;7(3):61-65. DOI: 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_88_18.
  16. Rodrigues JA, Diniz MB, Josgrilberg EB, et al. In vitro comparison of laser fluorescence performance with visual examination for detection of occlusal caries in permanent and primary molars. Lasers Med Sci 2009;24(4):501-506. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-008-0552-4.
  17. Fung L, Smales R, Ngo H, et al. Diagnostic comparison of three groups of examiners using visual and laser fluorescence methods to detect occlusal caries in vitro. Aust Dent J 2004;49(2):67-71. DOI: 10.1111/j.18347819.2004.tb00052.x.
  18. Lussi A, Hibst R, Paulus R. DIAGNOdent: an optical method for caries detection. J Dent Res 2004;83(1_suppl):80-83. DOI: 10.1177/154405910408301s16.
  19. Mendes FM, Pinheiro SL, Bengtson AL. Effect of alteration in organic material of the occlusal caries on DIAGNOdent readings. Braz Oral Res 2004;18(2):141-144. DOI: 10.1590/S1806-83242004000200009.
  20. Rechmann P, Rechmann BM, Featherstone JD, et al. Performance of laser fluorescence devices and visual examination for the detection of occlusal caries in permanent molars. J Biomed Opt 2012;17(3):36006. DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.17.3.036006.
  21. Domejean S, Rongier J, Muller-Bolla M. Detection of occlusal carious lesion using the Soprolife camera: a systematic review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(9):774-779. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024- 1928.
  22. Pinelli C, Loffredo Lde CM, Serra MC. Effect of drying on the reproducibility of DIAGNOdent to detect caries-like lesions. Braz Dent J 2010;21(5):405-410. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-64402010000500005.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.