본문 바로가기
  • Home

Comparison of Diagnostic Validity between Laser Fluorescence Devices in Proximal Caries

  • Journal of the Korean academy of pediatric dentistry
  • Abbr : J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent
  • 2018, 45(4), pp.426-435
  • DOI : 10.5933/JKAPD.2018.45.4.426
  • Publisher : The Korean Academy Of Pediatric Dentistry
  • Research Area : Medicine and Pharmacy > Dentistry
  • Received : January 10, 2018
  • Accepted : February 23, 2018
  • Published : November 30, 2018

Changkeun Lee 1 LEE DAE-WOO 2 KIM JAE GON 2 Yang Yeon Mi 2

1전북대학교 치의학전문대학원 소아치과학교실 및 구강생체과학연구소
2전북대학교

Accredited

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.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.