Proximal caries lesion detection using the Canary Caries Detection System: an in vitro study.
Autor: | Jan J; Department of Cariology and Endodontics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia. janja.jan@mf.uni-lj.si., Wan Bakar WZ; School of Dental Sciences, University Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia., Mathews SM; Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA., Okoye LO; Faculty of Dentistry, University of Nigeria, Enugu, Nigeria., Ehler BR; Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA., Louden C; Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA., Amaechi BT; Department of Comprehensive Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. |
---|---|
Jazyk: | angličtina |
Zdroj: | Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry [J Investig Clin Dent] 2016 Nov; Vol. 7 (4), pp. 383-390. Date of Electronic Publication: 2015 May 27. |
DOI: | 10.1111/jicd.12163 |
Abstrakt: | Objective: This study investigated the accuracy of the Canary System (CS) to detect proximal caries lesions in vitro, and compared it with conventional methods: International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) II and bitewing radiography (BW). Methods: Visible proximal surfaces of extracted human teeth were assessed by ICDAS-II before setting them in five manikin mouth models. Then contacting proximal surfaces in mouth models were assessed by BW and CS. Histological validation with polarized-light microscopy served as a gold standard. Pairwise comparisons were performed on area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the three methods, and corrected using Bonferroni's method. Sensitivities and specificities were compared using a test of proportions and AUC values were compared using DeLong's method. Results: The CS presented significantly higher sensitivity (0.933) than ICDAS-II (0.733, P = 0.01) and BW (0.267, P < 0.001), and ICDAS-II higher sensitivity than BW (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between their specificity values: 0.825 (CS), 0.65 (ICDAS-II), and 0.875 (BW). The AUC of CS (0.862) was significantly higher than of ICDAS-II (0.681, P < 0.001) and BW (0.577, P < 0.001). Conclusion: The CS demonstrated greater accuracy in detecting proximal lesions than ICDAS-II and BW, although without significantly higher specificity. (© 2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.) |
Databáze: | MEDLINE |
Externí odkaz: |