This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of two sets of visual scoring criteria for detecting caries severity and assessing caries activity status in occlusal surfaces. Two visual scoring systems – the Nyvad criteria (NY) and the ICDAS-II including an adjunct system for lesion activity assessment (ICDAS-LAA) – were compared using 763 primary molars of 139 children aged 3–12 years. The examinations were performed by 2 calibrated examiners. A subsample (n = 50) was collected after extraction and histology with 0.1% red methyl dye was performed to validate lesion depth and activity. The reproducibility of the indices was calculated (kappa test) and ROC analysis was performed to assess their validity and related parameters were compared using McNemar’s test. The association between the indices and with the histological examination was evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rs). Visual criteria showed excellent reproducibility both regarding severity (NY: 0.94; ICDAS-II: 0.91) and activity (NY: 0.90; LAA: 0.91). The NY and LAA showed good association in caries activity assessment (rs = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.86–0.89; p < 0.001). Nevertheless, considering only cavitated lesions, this association was not significant (p > 0.05). Concerning the severity, both indices presented similar validity parameters. At D2 threshold, the sensitivity was higher for NY (NY = 0.87; ICDAS = 0.61, p < 0.05). Regarding activity status, NY showed higher specificities and accuracies. In conclusion, NY and ICDAS-II criteria are comparable and present good reproducibility and validity to detect caries lesions and estimate their severities, but the LAA seems to overestimate the caries activity assessment of cavitated lesions compared to NY.

Keywords:
Caries activity, Dental caries, Occlusal surfaces, Primary teeth, Visual inspection/examination
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
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.