In vivo study of different methods for diagnosing pit and fissure caries

ABACUS/Manakin Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Melo Almiñana, María del Pilar
dc.contributor.author Pascual, Agustín
dc.contributor.author Camps, Isabel
dc.contributor.author Campo, Ángel del
dc.date.accessioned 2019-02-08T08:14:02Z
dc.date.available 2019-02-08T08:14:02Z
dc.date.issued 2015
dc.identifier.citation Melo, M., Pascual, A., Camps, I., & Campo, Á. (2015). In vivo study of different methods for diagnosing pit and fissure caries. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 7(3), e387-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.52347 spa
dc.identifier.issn 1989-5488
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/11268/7786
dc.description.abstract Background: In recent years the early detection of such caries has gained importance, since it may avoid unnecessary dental tissue damage and allow minimally invasive dental treatment. A study is made of 5 systems for diagnosing caries: traditional visual and tactile methods, DIAGNOdent, VistaProof and CarieScan. Material and Methods: A prospective study was made in the Department of Stomatology, Dental Pathology and Therapeutics Teaching unit of the University of Valencia (Valencia, Spain), involving the analysis of 32 teeth (molars or premolars of both arches scheduled for filling or for use as posts in dental bridges) in 28 patients. The following caries diagnostic methods were applied: visual, tactile, DIAGNOdent (KAvo, Biberach, Germany), VistaProof (Dürr Dental AG, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) and CarieScan (IDMoS Dental Systems, Dundee, Scotland, United Kingdom). Fissurotomy was subsequently performed for histological validation. Results: Visual inspection showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.75, with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.75. Tactile diagnosis in turn showed AUC = 0.714, with maximum sensitivity (100%) and a specificity of 42.9%. DIAGNOdent (cutoff point 22.5) and VistaProof (cutoff point 1.1) showed AUC = 0.969, while CarieScan (cutoff point 21.5) presented AUC = 0.973. These latter three methods all had a sensitivity of over 92%. The specificity of DIAGNOdent was maximum, while that of CarieScan and VistaProof was 75%. Conclusions: The emergent methods in the diagnosis of caries (DIAGNOdent, VistaProof and CarieScan) yielded similar results, and in all cases proved superior to the traditional visual and tactile methods. DIAGNOdent was seen to be the most effective technique, followed by CarieScan and VistaProof. spa
dc.description.sponsorship Sin financiación spa
dc.language.iso eng spa
dc.title In vivo study of different methods for diagnosing pit and fissure caries spa
dc.type article spa
dc.description.impact 0.342 SJR (2015) Q3, 77/136 Dentistry (miscellaneous) spa
dc.identifier.doi 10.4317/jced.52347
dc.rights.accessRights openAccess spa
dc.subject.uem Caries dental spa
dc.subject.uem Diagnóstico spa
dc.subject.unesco Odontología spa
dc.description.filiation UEV spa
dc.relation.publisherversion http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.52347 spa
dc.peerreviewed Si spa

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record