Restor Dent Endod.  2017 Feb;42(1):48-53. 10.5395/rde.2017.42.1.48.

Comparison of two different methods of detecting residual caries

• Koç Vural U
• Kütük ZB
• Ergin E
• Yalçın Çakır F
• Gürgan S

• KMID: 2367321
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.1.48

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of the fluorescence-aided caries excavation (FACE) device to detect residual caries by comparing conventional methods in vivo.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 301 females and 202 males with carious teeth participated in this study. The cavity preparations were done by grade 4 (Group 1, 154 teeth), grade 5 (Group 2, 176 teeth), and postgraduate (Group 3, 173 teeth) students. After caries excavation using a handpiece and hand instruments, the presence of residual caries was evaluated by 2 investigators who were previously calibrated for visual-tactile assessment with and without magnifying glasses and trained in the use of a FACE device. The tooth number, cavity type, and presence or absence of residual caries were recorded. The data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, the Fisher's Exact test, or the McNemar test as appropriate. Kappa statistics was used for calibration. In all tests, the level of significance was set at p = 0.05.
RESULTS
Almost half of the cavities prepared were Class II (Class I, 20.9%; Class II, 48.9%; Class III, 20.1%; Class IV, 3.4%; Class V, 6.8%). Higher numbers of cavities left with caries were observed in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3 for all examination methods. Significant differences were found between visual inspection with or without magnifying glasses and inspection with a FACE device for all groups (p < 0.001). More residual caries were detected through inspection with a FACE device (46.5%) than through either visual inspection (31.8%) or inspection with a magnifying glass (37.6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, the FACE device may be an effective method for the detection of residual caries.

Keyword

Detection of residual caries; Fluorescence-aided caries excavation; Magnifying glass; Visual inspection; Visual-tactile examination

MeSH Terms

Calibration
Eyeglasses
Female
Glass
Hand
Humans
Male
Methods*
Research Personnel
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 View of residual caries (orange color) observed with a fluorescence-aided caries excavation device.

Reference

1. de Almeida Neves A, Coutinho E, Cardoso MV, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Current concepts and techniques for caries excavation and adhesion to residual dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2011; 13:7–22.

2. Ericson D, Kidd E, McComb D, Mjör I, Noack MJ. Minimally invasive dentistry-concepts and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2003; 1:59–72.

3. Krause F, Braun A, Eberhard J, Jepsen S. Laser fluorescence measurements compared to electrical resistance of residual dentine in excavated cavities in vivo. Caries Res. 2007; 41:135–140.

4. Neves AA, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Does DIAGNOdent provide a reliable caries-removal endpoint? J Dent. 2011; 39:351–360.

5. Celiberti P, Francescut P, Lussi A. Performance of four dentine excavation methods in deciduous teeth. Caries Res. 2006; 40:117–123.

6. Banerjee A, Yasseri M, Munson M. A method for the detection and quantification of bacteria in human carious dentine using fluorescent in situ hybridisation. J Dent. 2002; 30:359–363.

7. Ismail AI. Visual and visuo-tactile detection of dental caries. J Dent Res. 2004; 83:Supplement C. C56–C66.

8. Nadanovsky P, Cohen Carneiro F, Souza de Mello F. Removal of caries using only hand instruments: a comparison of mechanical and chemo-mechanical methods. Caries Res. 2001; 35:384–389.

9. Neuhaus KW, Ellwood R, Lussi A, Pitts NB. Traditional lesion detection aids. Monogr Oral Sci. 2009; 21:42–51.

10. Lennon AM, Attin T, Martens S, Buchalla W. Fluorescence-aided caries excavation (FACE), caries detector, and conventional caries excavation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2009; 31:316–319.

11. Coulthwaite L, Pretty IA, Smith PW, Higham SM, Verran J. The microbiological origin of fluorescence observed in plaque on dentures during QLF analysis. Caries Res. 2006; 40:112–116.

12. Koenig K, Schneckenburger H. Laser-induced autofluorescence for medical diagnosis. J Fluoresc. 1994; 4:17–40.

13. Lai G, Zhu L, Xu X, Kunzelmann KH. An in vitro comparison of fluorescence-aided caries excavation and conventional excavation by microhardness testing. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:599–605.

14. Lai G, Kaisarly D, Xu X, Kunzelmann KH. MicroCT-based comparison between fluorescence-aided caries Detection of residual caries excavation and conventional excavation. Am J Dent. 2014; 27:12–16.

15. Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: a micro-CT investigation. J Dent. 2011; 39:154–162.

16. Zhang X, Tu R, Yin W, Zhou X, Li X, Hu D. Micro-computerized tomography assessment of fluorescence aided caries excavation (FACE) technology: comparison with three other caries removal techniques. Aust Dent J. 2013; 58:461–467.

17. Unlu N, Ermis RB, Sener S, Kucukyilmaz E, Cetin AR. An in vitro comparison of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries. Int J Dent. 2010; 2010:864935.

18. Meller C, Heyduck C, Tranaeus S, Splieth C. A new in vivo method for measuring caries activity using quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Caries Res. 2006; 40:90–96.

19. Ganter P, Al-Ahmad A, Wrbas KT, Hellwig E, Altenburger MJ. The use of computer-assisted FACE for minimal-invasive caries excavation. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:745–751.

20. Lennon AM, Buchalla W, Switalski L, Stookey GK. Residual caries detection using visible fluorescence. Caries Res. 2002; 36:315–319.

21. Lennon AM, Attin T, Buchalla W. Quantity of remaining bacteria and cavity size after excavation with FACE, caries detector dye and conventional excavation in vitro. Oper Dent. 2007; 32:236–241.

22. Lennon AM, Buchalla W, Rassner B, Becker K, Attin T. Efficiency of 4 caries excavation methods compared. Oper Dent. 2006; 31:551–555.

23. Peskersoy C, Turkun M, Onal B. Comparative clinical evaluation of the efficacy of a new method for caries diagnosis and excavation. J Conserv Dent. 2015; 18:364–368.

24. Narula K, Kundabala M, Shetty N, Shenoy R. Evaluation of tooth preparations for Class II cavities using magnification loupes among dental interns and final year BDS students in preclinical laboratory. J Conserv Dent. 2015; 18:284–287.

25. Maggio MP, Villegas H, Blatz MB. The effect of magnification loupes on the performance of preclinical dental students. Quintessence Int. 2011; 42:45–55.

26. Farook SA, Stokes RJ, Davis AK, Sneddon K, Collyer J. Use of dental loupes among dental trainers and trainees in the UK. J Investig Clin Dent. 2013; 4:120–123.

27. Zaugg B, Stassinakis A, Hotz P. Influence of magnification tools on the recognition of simulated preparation and filling errors. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2004; 114:890–896.