Jonas de Almeida Rodrigues1, Isabel Hug, Adrian Lussi. 1. Department of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. jonas.rodrigues@zmk.unibe.ch
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) wrapping on the performance of two laser fluorescence devices (LF and LFpen) by assessing tooth occlusal surfaces. BACKGROUND DATA: Protection of their tips may influence LF measurements. To date there are no studies evaluating the influence of this protection on the performance of the LFpen on permanent teeth, or comparing it to the original LF device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen permanent molars were assessed by two experienced dentists using the LF and the LFpen devices, both with and without PVC wrapping. The teeth were histologically prepared and assessed for caries extension. RESULTS: The LF values with and without PVC wrapping were significantly different. For both LF devices, the sensitivity and accuracy were lower when the PVC wrapping was used. The specificity was statistically significantly higher for the LFpen with PVC. No difference was found between the areas under the ROC curves with and without PVC wrapping. The ICC showed excellent interexaminer agreement. The Bland and Altman method showed a range between the upper and the lower limits of agreement of 63.4 and 57.8 units for the LF device, and 49.4 and 74.2 for the LFpen device, with and without PVC wrapping, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found an influence of the PVC wrapping on the performance of the LF and LFpen devices. However, since its influence on detection of occlusal caries lesions is considered for, the use of one PVC layer is suggested to avoid cross-contamination in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) wrapping on the performance of two laser fluorescence devices (LF and LFpen) by assessing tooth occlusal surfaces. BACKGROUND DATA: Protection of their tips may influence LF measurements. To date there are no studies evaluating the influence of this protection on the performance of the LFpen on permanent teeth, or comparing it to the original LF device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred nineteen permanent molars were assessed by two experienced dentists using the LF and the LFpen devices, both with and without PVC wrapping. The teeth were histologically prepared and assessed for caries extension. RESULTS: The LF values with and without PVC wrapping were significantly different. For both LF devices, the sensitivity and accuracy were lower when the PVC wrapping was used. The specificity was statistically significantly higher for the LFpen with PVC. No difference was found between the areas under the ROC curves with and without PVC wrapping. The ICC showed excellent interexaminer agreement. The Bland and Altman method showed a range between the upper and the lower limits of agreement of 63.4 and 57.8 units for the LF device, and 49.4 and 74.2 for the LFpen device, with and without PVC wrapping, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found an influence of the PVC wrapping on the performance of the LF and LFpen devices. However, since its influence on detection of occlusal caries lesions is considered for, the use of one PVC layer is suggested to avoid cross-contamination in clinical practice.