Rohit R Behere1, Shailesh M Lele. 1. Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital, Pune, India. dr.behere@gmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital radiography has so far not resulted in improved rates of proximal caries detection. Historically, automated caries detection tools have been largely academic. Opinions regarding the performance of the only such commercially available tool, viz., Logicon caries Detector (LCD) have been equivocal. This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability of LCD in the detection and depth assessment of proximal caries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Digital images were obtained of 100 proximal tooth surfaces using the Kodak RVG 5000 sensor and analyzed by three observers. The images were then analyzed by the principal investigator using the LCD software. The teeth were then sectioned and magnified photographic images were obtained which were taken as the gold standard. All the grades were entered in proformas and the data were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test. Five parameters of reliability were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of LCD for the grade No caries were 33, 96, 73, 82, and 81%, respectively; for the grade Enamel caries were 5, 97, 33, 80, and 79%, respectively; and for the grade Dentin caries were 100, 96, 50, 100, and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LCD appears to be more reliable in ruling out (both enamel and dentin) caries than in detecting caries.
BACKGROUND: Digital radiography has so far not resulted in improved rates of proximal caries detection. Historically, automated caries detection tools have been largely academic. Opinions regarding the performance of the only such commercially available tool, viz., Logicon caries Detector (LCD) have been equivocal. This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability of LCD in the detection and depth assessment of proximal caries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Digital images were obtained of 100 proximal tooth surfaces using the Kodak RVG 5000 sensor and analyzed by three observers. The images were then analyzed by the principal investigator using the LCD software. The teeth were then sectioned and magnified photographic images were obtained which were taken as the gold standard. All the grades were entered in proformas and the data were statistically analyzed using the chi-square test. Five parameters of reliability were calculated. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of LCD for the grade No caries were 33, 96, 73, 82, and 81%, respectively; for the grade Enamel caries were 5, 97, 33, 80, and 79%, respectively; and for the grade Dentin caries were 100, 96, 50, 100, and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, LCD appears to be more reliable in ruling out (both enamel and dentin) caries than in detecting caries.
Authors: Manal H Hamdan; Lyudmila Tuzova; André Mol; Peter Z Tawil; Dmitry Tuzoff; Donald A Tyndall Journal: Dentomaxillofac Radiol Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 3.525
Authors: F Casalegno; T Newton; R Daher; M Abdelaziz; A Lodi-Rizzini; F Schürmann; I Krejci; H Markram Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Michael G Endres; Florian Hillen; Marios Salloumis; Ahmad R Sedaghat; Stefan M Niehues; Olivia Quatela; Henning Hanken; Ralf Smeets; Benedicta Beck-Broichsitter; Carsten Rendenbach; Karim Lakhani; Max Heiland; Robert A Gaudin Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-06-24
Authors: Tanya Walsh; Richard Macey; Philip Riley; Anne-Marie Glenny; Falk Schwendicke; Helen V Worthington; Janet E Clarkson; David Ricketts; Ting-Li Su; Anita Sengupta Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-03-15