This study assessed the validity and reproducibility of different combinations of occlusal caries detection methods: visual examination (VE), laser fluorescence (LF) and radiographic examination (RE). Intra- and interexaminer reproducibilities were also assessed. Forty-seven extracted human molars were used and 121 sites, either suspected or not to be carious, were chosen. Occlusal surfaces were examined by 8 volunteers, assigned to three groups according to their level of knowledge and clinical experience on dental practice: group I, undergraduate students; group II, postgraduate students; group III, professors. Three combinations of methods were tested: A: VE + LF, B: VE + RE, C: VE + LF + RE. The examiners scored the sites using ranking scales and chose a final score based on their clinical experience. The gold standard was determined by histological examination of the sites. In general, LF and RE yielded poorer results than the combinations of methods. For combination A, group III showed the highest sensitivity, while group II showed the highest specificity. For combination B, group II showed moderate sensitivity whereas groups I and III exhibited low sensitivities; all groups of examiners reached substantial specificity. For combination C, all groups exhibited moderate sensitivity and substantial specificity. Interexaminer reproducibility ranged from fair to moderate for combinations A and C, while for combination B kappa values indicated moderate interexaminer reproducibility. It may be concluded that individual exams presented inferior performance than the conjunction of them. Combination C (VE + LF + RE) resulted in the best accuracy for all groups. The knowledge background of the examiners influenced their ability to detect caries lesions and affected interexaminer reproducibility.

This content is only available via PDF.
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.