In vivo study of different methods for diagnosing pit and fissure caries
NAGIOS: RODERIC FUNCIONANDO

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

DSpace Repository

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

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Melo Almiñana, María Pilar es
dc.contributor.author Pascual Moscardó, Agustín es
dc.contributor.author Camps Alemany, Isabel es
dc.contributor.author Campo Rodríguez, Ángel del es
dc.date.accessioned 2015-09-21T08:55:48Z
dc.date.available 2015-09-21T08:55:48Z
dc.date.issued 2015 es
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10550/47178
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. es
dc.source Melo Almiñana, María Pilar ; Pascual Moscardó, Agustín ; Camps Alemany, Isabel ; Campo Rodríguez, Ángel del. In vivo study of different methods for diagnosing pit and fissure caries. En: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2015, Vol. 7, No. 3: 387-391 es
dc.subject Odontología es
dc.subject Ciencias de la salud es
dc.title In vivo study of different methods for diagnosing pit and fissure caries es
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article en
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion en
dc.subject.unesco UNESCO::CIENCIAS MÉDICAS es

View       (604.8Kb)

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

Advanced Search

Browse

Statistics