The aim of this study was to compare the caries diagnostic outcome of four methods frequently used as validation for dental caries. The diagnostic outcome of clinical examination (CL), radiography (RA), and histology after serial tooth sectioning (HI-serial) on 373 approximal and 158 occlusal surfaces was compared, and furthermore histology after hemi- (HI-hemi) and serial sectioning on another 113 approximal and 53 occlusal surfaces was compared. Two thresholds for each method (CL: (1) sound vs. all caries scores, and (2) non-cavitated vs. cavitated lesions; RA and HI: (1) sound vs. all caries scores, and (2) no dentine vs. dentine lesions) were evaluated. In general, large differences in diagnostic outcomes were observed with the various methods. At threshold 1, CL resulted in significantly more lesions than both RA and HI-serial on approximal surfaces, and than RA on occlusal surfaces. At threshold 2, no significant differences between CL, RA and HI-serial were found on approximal surfaces, but on occlusal surfaces significantly more lesions were diagnosed with RA and HI-serial than with CL. Significantly more occlusal lesions were found by HI-serial than by RA at both thresholds 1 and 2. On approximal surfaces, a similar result was found only at threshold 1. On approximal surfaces, significantly more lesions were diagnosed with HI-serial than with HI-hemi at both thresholds 1 and 2. On occlusal surfaces the same was found only at threshold 1. The intra-observer reproducibility was higher using HI-serial than using RA and CL.

Keywords:
Dental caries, Caries diagnosis, Validation, Radiography, Histology, Reproducibility
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2003 S. Karger AG, Basel
2003
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.