Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Validity and Reproducibility of Different Combinations of Methods for Occlusal Caries Detection: An in vitro Comparison

Souza-Zaroni W.C. · Ciccone J.C. · Souza-Gabriel A.E. · Ramos R.P. · Corona S.A.M. · Palma-Dibb R.G.

Author affiliations

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

Related Articles for ""

Caries Res 2006;40:194–201

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: July 07, 2004
Accepted: November 01, 2004
Published online: May 19, 2006
Issue release date: May 2006

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0008-6568 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-976X (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/CRE

Abstract

This study assessed the validity and reproducibility of different combinations of occlusal caries detection methods: visual examination (VE), laser fluorescence (LF) and radiographic examination (RE). Intra- and interexaminer reproducibilities were also assessed. Forty-seven extracted human molars were used and 121 sites, either suspected or not to be carious, were chosen. Occlusal surfaces were examined by 8 volunteers, assigned to three groups according to their level of knowledge and clinical experience on dental practice: group I, undergraduate students; group II, postgraduate students; group III, professors. Three combinations of methods were tested: A: VE + LF, B: VE + RE, C: VE + LF + RE. The examiners scored the sites using ranking scales and chose a final score based on their clinical experience. The gold standard was determined by histological examination of the sites. In general, LF and RE yielded poorer results than the combinations of methods. For combination A, group III showed the highest sensitivity, while group II showed the highest specificity. For combination B, group II showed moderate sensitivity whereas groups I and III exhibited low sensitivities; all groups of examiners reached substantial specificity. For combination C, all groups exhibited moderate sensitivity and substantial specificity. Interexaminer reproducibility ranged from fair to moderate for combinations A and C, while for combination B kappa values indicated moderate interexaminer reproducibility. It may be concluded that individual exams presented inferior performance than the conjunction of them. Combination C (VE + LF + RE) resulted in the best accuracy for all groups. The knowledge background of the examiners influenced their ability to detect caries lesions and affected interexaminer reproducibility.

© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Basting RT, Serra MC: Occlusal caries: diagnosis and noninvasive treatments. Quintessence Int 1999;30:174–178.
  2. Bulman JS, Osborn JF: Measuring diagnostic consistency. Br Dent J 1989;166:377–381.
  3. Cleaton-Jones P: Dental caries diagnosis calibration for clinical field surveys. Caries Res 1989;23:195–199.
  4. Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960;20:37–47.
    External Resources
  5. Côrtes DF, Ekstrand KR, Elias-Boneta AR, Ellwood RP: An in vitro comparison of the ability of fibre-optic transillumination, visual inspection and radiographs to detect occlusal caries and evaluate lesion depth. Caries Res 2000;34:443–447.
  6. Côrtes DF, Ellwood RP, Ekstrand KR: An in vitro comparison of a combined FOTI/visual examination of occlusal caries with other caries diagnostic methods and the effect of stain on their diagnostic performance. Caries Res 2003;37:8–16.
  7. Creanor S, Russell JL, Strang DM, Burchell CK: The prevalence of clinically undetected occlusal dentine caries in Scottish adolescents. Br Dent J 1990;169:126–129.
  8. Dodds MWJ: Dilemmas in caries diagnosis – applications to current practice and need for research. J Dent Educ 1993;57:433–438.
  9. Ekstrand KR, Ricketts DN, Kidd EA: Occlusal caries: pathology, diagnosis and logical management. Dent Update 2001;28:380–387.
  10. El-Housseiny AA, Jamjoum H: Evaluation of visual, explorer, and a laser device for detection of early occlusal caries. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;26:41–48.
  11. Elderton RJ: Longitudinal study of dental treatment in the General Dental service in Scotland. Br Dent J 1983;155:91–96.
  12. Elderton RJ: Assessment and clinical management of early caries in young adults: invasive versus non-invasive methods. Br Dent J 1985;158:440–444.
  13. Espelid I, Tveit AB, Haugejorden O, Riordan PJ: Variation in radiographic interpretation and restorative treatment decisions on caries among dentists in Norway. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1985;13:26–29.
  14. Forgie AH, Pine CM, Pitts NB: The assessment of an intra-oral video camera as an aid to occlusal caries detection. Int Dent J 2003;53:3–6.
  15. Fung L, Smales R, Ngo H, Moun G: Diagnostic comparison of three groups of examiners using visual and laser fluorescence methods to detect occlusal caries in vitro. Aust Dent J 2004;49:67–71.
  16. Hintze H, Wenzel A: Clinical and laboratory radiographic caries diagnosis: a study of the same teeth. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1996;25:115–118.
  17. Huysmans MC, Longbottom C, Hintze H, Verdonschot EH: Surface-specific electrical occlusal caries diagnosis: reproducibility, correlation with histological lesion depth, and tooth type dependence. Caries Res 1998;32:330–336.
  18. Kay EJ, Paterson RC, Blinkhorn AS: Preliminary investigation into the validity of dentists’ decisions to restore occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1988;16:91–94.
  19. Kidd EAM, Joyston-Bechal S: Essentials of Dental Caries: the Disease and Its Management. Bristol, Wright, 1987.
  20. Kidd EAM, Ricketts DN, Pitts NB: Occlusal caries diagnosis: a changing challenge for clinicians and epidemiologists. J Dent 1993;21:323–331.
  21. Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.
  22. Lavaonius E, Kerosuo E, Kallio P, Pietila I, Mjör IA: Occlusal restorative decisions based on visual inspection – calibration and comparison of different methods. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997;25:156–159.
  23. Lazarchik DA, Firestone AR, Heaven TJ, Filler SJ, Lussi A: Radiographic evaluation of occlusal caries: effect of training and experience. Caries Res 1995;29:355–358.
  24. Lussi A, Firestone A, Schoenberg V, Hotz P, Stich H: In vivo diagnosis of fissure caries using a new electrical resistance monitor. Caries Res 1995;29:81–87.
  25. Lussi A, Imwinkelried S, Pitts N, Longbottom C, Reich E: Performance and reproducibility of a laser fluorescence system for detection of occlusal caries in vitro. Caries Res 1999;33:261–266.
  26. Lussi A, Megert B, Longbottom C, Reich E, Francescut P: Clinical performance of a laser fluorescence device for detection of occlusal caries lesions. Eur J Oral Sci 2001;109:14–19.
  27. Mileman PA, Espelid I: Decisions on restorative recall intervals based on bitewing radiographs: a comparison between national surveys of Dutch and Norwegian practitioners. Community Dent Health 1988;5:273–284.
  28. Newbrun E: Problems in caries diagnosis. Int Dent J 1993;43:133–142.
  29. Noar SJ, Smith BGN: Diagnosis of caries and treatment decisions in approximal surfaces of posterior teeth in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17:209–218.
  30. Nuttall NM: Capability of national epidemiological survey to predict general dental service treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1983;11:296–301.
  31. Nuttall NM, Pitts NB: Restorative treatment thresholds reported to be used by dentists in Scotland. Br Dent J 1990;169:119–126.
  32. Palma-Dibb RG, Cortes DF, Navarro MFL, Capelozza ALA: Assessing in vivo bitewing radiograph, FOTI and clinical examination for occlusal caries diagnosis. Rev Odontol UNESP 2000;29:173–181.
  33. Pardi V, Mialhe FL, Pereira AC, Meneghim MC: In vitro evaluation of a laser fluorescence system (DIAGNOdent) for occlusal caries diagnosis (in Portuguese). Pesqui Odontol Bras 2000;14:372–377.
    External Resources
  34. Pinelli C, Campos Serra M, de Castro Monteiro Loffredo L: Validity and reproducibility of a laser fluorescence system for detecting the activity of white-spot lesions on free smooth surfaces in vivo. Caries Res 2002;36:19–24.
  35. Ricketts DN, Ekstrand KR, Kidd EA, Larse T: Relating visual and radiographic ranked scoring systems for occlusal caries detection to histological and microbiological evidence. Oper Dent 2002;27:231–237.
  36. Sheehy EC, Brailsford SR, Kidd EA, Beighton D, Zoitopoulos L: Comparison between visual examination and a laser fluorescence system for in vivo diagnosis of occlusal caries. Caries Res 2001;35:421–426.
  37. Shi XQ, Welander U, Angmar-Månsson B: Occlusal caries detection with KaVo DIAGNOdent and radiography: an in vitro comparison. Caries Res 2000;34:151–158.
  38. Silva BB, Maltz M, Franco F: Diagnóstico e tratamento da cárie de superfície oclusal: variação entre examinadores. Rev APCD 1994;48:1231–1234.
  39. Tam LE, McComb D: Diagnosis of occlusal caries. Part II: Recent diagnostic technologies. J Can Dent Assoc 2001;67:459–463.
  40. Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O: Textbook of Clinical Cariology, ed 2. Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1994, pp 367–380.
  41. Wenzel A, Anthonisen PN, Juul MB: Reproducibility in the assessment of caries lesion behavior: a comparison between conventional film and subtraction radiography. Caries Res 2000;34:214–218.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: July 07, 2004
Accepted: November 01, 2004
Published online: May 19, 2006
Issue release date: May 2006

Number of Print Pages: 8
Number of Figures: 1
Number of Tables: 2

ISSN: 0008-6568 (Print)
eISSN: 1421-976X (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/CRE


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.