How different do visuo-tactile criteria assess caries lesions activity status on occlusal surfaces?

OBJECTIVES: We tested the association between active caries lesions assessed by two different criteria and clinical features of these caries lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three examiners examined forty-nine 3- to 12-year-old children: one examiner used the Nyvad criteria, another examiner used the International Caries Detection and Assessment System with an additional criteria--Lesion Activity Assessment (ICDAS + LAA), and a reference examiner classified lesions regarding plaque stagnation, colour, lustre, cavities, depth and texture. Logistic regressions were used to test associations. For analyses, we grouped sound sites and inactive lesions vs active caries lesions, but also considering only inactive vs active lesions. RESULTS: Active lesions scored by both criteria were similarly associated with different clinical parameters tested, except when the sound sites were excluded from the analysis. In these cases, active lesions according to ICDAS + LAA were associated only with cavitation and texture. Texture was associated with divergences between criteria when differentiating sound or inactive lesions from active ones. Fewer divergences in differentiating active from inactive lesions were observed when lesions present lustre. CONCLUSION: Most clinical signs associated with active caries lesions were similar, but texture and severity tend to have a greater importance when using ICDAS + LAA for distinguishing caries activity status. Attention should be given to differences due to texture and lustre when using different indices.

Influence of examiner experience on clinical performance of visual inspection in detecting and assessing the activity status of caries lesions.

Our hypothesis was that a method of caries activity evaluation based on the clinical features of the lesions would be less time consuming but more influenced by the examiner's experience than the scoring system used in association with the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS). Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of three groups of examiners with different levels of experience using two different methods to assess the activity status of caries lesions by visual inspection. A cross-sectional study in a dental office setting was performed selecting 18 children, aged three to eight years, who had sought dental treatment at a dental school. Examinations to detect caries lesions were performed using visual inspection by six examiners with different levels of experience: two undergraduate dental students, two specialists in pediatric dentistry, and two graduate students. The examiners used ICDAS and two different methods to assess caries activity: using an additional score system or considering the examination of clinical features. Two benchmark examiners examined the children in a joint session, and their consensus was considered to be the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility were calculated for different thresholds: all, cavitated, and active caries lesions. Multilevel analyses were performed to compare the different methods and examiners. No differences were observed among the examiners, either in detecting all lesions and cavitated lesions or regarding the activity assessment. The methods of assessing activity status performed similarly, but the time spent on examinations was shorter for the method evaluating clinical features. In conclusion, the experience of examiners does not significantly influence the performance of visual inspection, and both methods of assessing activity status result in similar diagnostic accuracy.

Radiographic and laser fluorescence methods have no benefits for detecting caries in primary teeth.

Clinical guidelines advise that dentists take radiographs in children to detect caries lesions missed by visual inspection; however, due to the current low caries prevalence in most countries, we hypothesized that the adjunct methods of caries detection would not significantly improve the detection of primary molar lesions in comparison to visual inspection alone. We evaluated the performance of visual inspection, alone or in combination with radiographic and laser fluorescence pen (LFpen) methods, in detecting occlusal and approximal caries lesions in primary molars. Two examiners evaluated children who had sought dental treatment with these diagnostic strategies. The reference standard involved the temporary separation of approximal and operative interventions for occlusal surfaces. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and utility of diagnostic strategies were calculated. Simultaneous combined strategies increased sensitivities but decreased specificities. Furthermore, no differences were observed in accuracy and utility, parameters more influenced by caries prevalence. In conclusion, adjunct radiographic and laser fluorescence methods offer no benefits to the detection of caries in primary teeth in comparison to visual inspection alone; hence, present clinical guidelines should be re-evaluated.

Clinical performance of two fluorescence-based methods in detecting occlusal caries lesions in primary teeth.

This in vivo study aimed to evaluate the performance of 2 fluorescence-based methods in detecting occlusal caries lesions in primary teeth, compared with the performance of visual inspection and radiographic methods, and to propose a mathematic correction of the diagnostic parameters due to the imperfect reference standard method used in the study. Two examiners assessed the occlusal surfaces of 407 primary teeth (62 children) using visual inspection (ICDAS), radiographic, DIAGNOdent pen (pen type laser fluorescence; LFpen), and fluorescence camera (FC) methods. At the noncavitated threshold (NC) the reference standard method was the results of ICDAS, and at the dentine caries threshold (D3) teeth diagnosed with dentine caries by ICDAS or radiographic methods were subjected to operative treatment to confirm the presence of lesion. Reproducibility, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and the area under the ROC curve were calculated for the methods at both thresholds. At the NC threshold, LFpen had a slightly better performance compared to the FC and radiographic methods. However, at the D3 threshold, both fluorescence-based methods performed similarly. Visual inspection and radiographic methods presented higher specificities but lower sensitivities than fluorescence methods. After corrections, there was a significant decrease in some parameters. In conclusion, both fluorescence-based methods presented similar performance in detecting occlusal dentine caries lesions in primary teeth, but they usually gave more false-positive results than did the visual and radiographic methods. The correction proposed shows that the performance of the methods can be overestimated, and the correction should be validated and considered in further studies that use an imprecise reference standard method.

Influence of the discomfort reported by children on the performance of approximal caries detection methods.

This in vivo study aimed to evaluate the performance of methods of approximal caries detection in primary molars and to assess the influence of the discomfort caused by these methods on their performance. Two examiners evaluated 76 children (4-12 years old) using visual inspection (ICDAS), radiography and a laser fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent pen, LFpen). The reference standard was visual inspection after temporary separation with orthodontic rubbers. Surfaces were classified as sound, noncavitated (NC) or cavitated (Cav), and performance was assessed at both NC and Cav thresholds. Wong-Baker faces scale was employed to assess the discomfort. Multilevel analysis was performed to verify the influence of discomfort on performance, considering the number of false-positives and false-negatives as outcome. At NC threshold, visual inspection achieved better performance (sensitivities and accuracies around 0.67) than other methods (sensitivities around 0.25 and accuracies around 0.35). At Cav threshold, visual inspection presented lower sensitivity (0.23 and 0.19), and LFpen (0.52 and 0.42) and radiography (0.52) presented similar sensitivities. Concerning the influence of the discomfort, at NC threshold, when discomfort was present, the number of false-negative results was lower with LFpen and the number of false-positive results was higher with visual inspection. At Cav threshold, the number of false-positive results was higher with LFpen. In conclusion, radiography and LFpen achieved similar performance in detecting approximal caries lesions in primary teeth and the discomfort caused by visual inspection and LFpen can influence the performance of these methods, since a higher number of false-positive or false-negative results occurred in children who reported discomfort.

Performance of a pen-type laser fluorescence device and conventional methods in detecting approximal caries lesions in primary teeth--in vivo study.

This in vivo study aimed to compare the performance of different methods of approximal caries detection in primary molars. Fifty children (aged 5-12 years) were selected, and 2 examiners evaluated 621 approximal surfaces of primary molars using: (a) visual inspection, (b) the radiographic method and (c) a pen-type laser fluorescence device (LFpen). As reference standard method, the teeth were separated using orthodontic rubbers during 7 days, and the surfaces were evaluated by 2 examiners for the presence of white spots or cavitations. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (A(z)) as well as sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (percentage of correct diagnosis) were calculated and compared with the McNemar test at both thresholds. The interexaminer reproducibility was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC-absolute values) and the kappa test (dichotomizing for both thresholds). The ICC value of the reference standard procedure was 0.94. At white-spot threshold, no methods tested presented good performance (sensitivity: visual 0.20-0.21; radiographic 0.16-0.23; LFpen 0.16; specificity: visual 0.95; radiographic 0.99-1.00; LFpen 0.94-0.96). At cavitation threshold, both LFpen and radiographic methods demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.55-0.65 and 0.65-0.70, respectively) and A(z) (0.92 and 0.88-0.89, respectively) than visual inspection sensitivity (0.30) and A(z) (0.69-0.76). All methods presented high specificities (around 0.99) and similar ICCs, but the kappa value for LFpen at white-spot threshold was lower (0.44). In conclusion, both LFpen and radiographic methods present similar performance in detecting the presence of cavitations on approximal surfaces of primary molars.