Eugene Chen1, Paul V Abbott. 1. School of Dentistry, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical accuracy, reliability, and repeatability of laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF), an electric pulp test (EPT), and various thermal pulp sensibility tests. METHODS: Pulp tests were done on 121 teeth in 20 subjects by using LDF, EPT, and thermal pulp testing (CO(2), Endo Frost [EF], Ice) during 2 or 3 test sessions with at least 1-week intervals. The order of testing was reversed on the second visit. A laser Doppler flowmeter was used to measure mean pulp blood flow (Flux) calibrated against a brownian motion medium and zeroed against a static reflector. The laser source was 780 nm, with 0.5-mm fiber separation in the probe, 3.1 kHz as the primary bandwidth for filter set to 0.1-second time output constant. Customized polyvinylsiloxane splints were fabricated for each participant, and a minimum of 90-second recording time was used for each tooth. Raw data were analyzed by using repeated measure analysis of variance, pairwise comparisons, and interclass correlations (ICC). RESULTS: The accuracy of EPT, CO(2), and LDF tests was 97.7%, 97.0%, and 96.3%, respectively, without significant differences (P > .3). Accuracy of EF and Ice was 90.7% and 84.8%, respectively. EPT (P = .015) and CO(2) (P = .022) were significantly more accurate than EF. LDF was more accurate than EF, but this was not statistically significant (P = .063). Ice was significantly less accurate than EPT (P = .004), CO(2) (P = .005), LDF (P = .006), and EF (P = .019). With the exception of Ice (effect of visit: F(2,38) = 5.67, mean squared error = 0.01, P = .007, η(2)(p) = 0.23), all tests were reliable. Ice (ICC = 0.677) and LDF (ICC = 0.654) were the most repeatable of the tests, whereas EPT (ICC = 0.434) and CO(2) (ICC = 0.432) were less repeatable. CONCLUSIONS: CO(2), EPT, and LDF were reliable and the most accurate tests, but CO(2) and EPT were less repeatable yet less time-consuming than LDF. EF was reliable but not as accurate as EPT and CO(2) and less repeatable than Ice and LDF. Ice was the most repeatable but the least accurate and least reliable test.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical accuracy, reliability, and repeatability of laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF), an electric pulp test (EPT), and various thermal pulp sensibility tests. METHODS: Pulp tests were done on 121 teeth in 20 subjects by using LDF, EPT, and thermal pulp testing (CO(2), Endo Frost [EF], Ice) during 2 or 3 test sessions with at least 1-week intervals. The order of testing was reversed on the second visit. A laser Doppler flowmeter was used to measure mean pulp blood flow (Flux) calibrated against a brownian motion medium and zeroed against a static reflector. The laser source was 780 nm, with 0.5-mm fiber separation in the probe, 3.1 kHz as the primary bandwidth for filter set to 0.1-second time output constant. Customized polyvinylsiloxane splints were fabricated for each participant, and a minimum of 90-second recording time was used for each tooth. Raw data were analyzed by using repeated measure analysis of variance, pairwise comparisons, and interclass correlations (ICC). RESULTS: The accuracy of EPT, CO(2), and LDF tests was 97.7%, 97.0%, and 96.3%, respectively, without significant differences (P > .3). Accuracy of EF and Ice was 90.7% and 84.8%, respectively. EPT (P = .015) and CO(2) (P = .022) were significantly more accurate than EF. LDF was more accurate than EF, but this was not statistically significant (P = .063). Ice was significantly less accurate than EPT (P = .004), CO(2) (P = .005), LDF (P = .006), and EF (P = .019). With the exception of Ice (effect of visit: F(2,38) = 5.67, mean squared error = 0.01, P = .007, η(2)(p) = 0.23), all tests were reliable. Ice (ICC = 0.677) and LDF (ICC = 0.654) were the most repeatable of the tests, whereas EPT (ICC = 0.434) and CO(2) (ICC = 0.432) were less repeatable. CONCLUSIONS:CO(2), EPT, and LDF were reliable and the most accurate tests, but CO(2) and EPT were less repeatable yet less time-consuming than LDF. EF was reliable but not as accurate as EPT and CO(2) and less repeatable than Ice and LDF. Ice was the most repeatable but the least accurate and least reliable test.
Authors: Frank Falkensammer; Wolfgang Schaden; Christoph Krall; Josef Freudenthaler; Hans-Peter Bantleon Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Eva Concepción Aguirre-López; Nuria Patiño-Marín; Gabriel Alejandro Martínez-Castañón; Carlo Eduardo Medina-Solís; Brenda Eréndida Castillo-Silva; Oscar Cepeda-Argüelles; Luis Alejandro Aguilera-Galaviz; Pedro Rosales-García Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 1.817