-
Comparison of two different methods of detecting residual caries
-
Uzay Koç Vural, Zeynep Bilge Kütük, Esra Ergin, Filiz Yalçın Çakır, Sevil Gürgan
-
Restor Dent Endod 2017;42(1):48-53. Published online January 25, 2017
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.1.48
-
-
Abstract
PDFPubReaderePub
- 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 MethodsA 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. ResultsAlmost 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%). ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, the FACE device may be an effective method for the detection of residual caries.
|