J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent.  2018 Nov;45(4):426-435. 10.5933/JKAPD.2018.45.4.426.

Comparison of Diagnostic Validity between Laser Fluorescence Devices in Proximal Caries

• Lee C
• Lee D
• Kim J
• Yang Y

• KMID: 2431334
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5933/JKAPD.2018.45.4.426

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the proximal caries detecting ability and identify the optimal cut-off values of two types of laser fluorescence (LF) devices; classic type (DD) and pen type (DDpen). The number of proximal surfaces participated in this study were 164 surfaces in primary dentition and 438 surfaces in permanent dentition. Each tooth surface was sequentially assessed by two types of LF devices, and bitewing radiograph. The radiographs were classified into 3 groups in primary dentition (PR₀, PR₁, PR₂), and 4 groups in permanent dentition (PR₀, PR₁, PR₂, PR₃) according to the depth of caries, and used as gold standard. In primary dentition, the area under the curve (AUC) values of DD were 0.851 and 0.890, and those of DDpen were 0.883 and 0.917, respectively in enamel caries and dentin caries. In permanent dentition, the AUC values of DD were 0.762 and 0.886, and those of DDpen were 0.828 and 0.958, respectively in enamel caries and dentin caries. When detecting proximal caries in posterior teeth with LF devices, DDpen is more useful than DD in both primary and permanent dentition. However, in primary dentition, DD can also be useful to detect proximal caries.

Keyword

Proximal caries; Caries detection; Laser fluorescence device

MeSH Terms

Area Under Curve
Dental Enamel
Dentin
Dentition, Permanent
Fluorescence*
Tooth
Tooth, Deciduous