AIM: To evaluate the reproducibility of 7 validation methods used for caries diagnosis in primary teeth. METHODS: Seventy-two occlusal sites were selected on 40 primary molars. The sites were evaluated independently by 3 experienced examiners using validation methods that involved direct assessment, i.e. by using a (1) magnifying glass (8×) and (2) stereomicroscope (35×), or indirect assessment i.e. by using (3) photographs, (4) slide projections of photographs, (5) stereomicroscope (35×) photographs, (6) stereomicroscope (35×) slide projections, and (7) projections of polarised light microscope slides. Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated and subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis test at a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: The mean inter-examiner kappa values for the validation methods were 0.31-0.51. There were statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between methods 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 4, 4 and 5, 4 and 6, and 4 and 7. Moderate agreement was observed for all methods except methods 1 and 4, for which the agreement was fair. CONCLUSIONS: The inter-examiner agreement for all validation methods for caries diagnosis was moderate, except for the method based on indirect assessment by slide projection, which showed low agreement.
AIM: To evaluate the reproducibility of 7 validation methods used for caries diagnosis in primary teeth. METHODS: Seventy-two occlusal sites were selected on 40 primary molars. The sites were evaluated independently by 3 experienced examiners using validation methods that involved direct assessment, i.e. by using a (1) magnifying glass (8×) and (2) stereomicroscope (35×), or indirect assessment i.e. by using (3) photographs, (4) slide projections of photographs, (5) stereomicroscope (35×) photographs, (6) stereomicroscope (35×) slide projections, and (7) projections of polarised light microscope slides. Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated and subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis test at a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: The mean inter-examiner kappa values for the validation methods were 0.31-0.51. There were statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between methods 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 4, 4 and 5, 4 and 6, and 4 and 7. Moderate agreement was observed for all methods except methods 1 and 4, for which the agreement was fair. CONCLUSIONS: The inter-examiner agreement for all validation methods for caries diagnosis was moderate, except for the method based on indirect assessment by slide projection, which showed low agreement.