AIM: The objective of this study was to determine the association between DIAGNOdent laser and caries detector dye in detection of the remaining caries in restorative cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 100 cavities prepared in patients referring to the Department of Restorative Dentistry of Mashhad Dental School. After confirming caries absence by tactile examination, the presence of any residual caries was determined by a laser fluorescence (LF) device (DIAGNOdent Pen) and then by caries detector dye. The data were analyzed through McNemar test. RESULTS: When the cut off value was considered as ≥13, both DIAGNOdent Pen and caries detector dye found 54 cavities as without caries and 12 cavities as carious. There were 32 teeth diagnosed as decayed only by the dye and two cases that were diagnosed as having residual caries only by the DIAGNOdent. The McNemar test revealed a significant difference in the diagnosis of residual caries between the two methods (p < 0.05), as well as significant differences between each method and tactile examination (p < 0.05). When the cut off value was set at ≥25, no significant difference was found between laser fluorescence and tactile examination in residual caries detection (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both DIAGNOdent Pen and caries detector dye can be considered as adjuncts for detecting residual caries in prepared cavities. However, the use of laser fluorescence device can provide results that are more consistent with tactile examination, while relying on caries detector dye may result in excessive removal of tooth tissue, and thus increase the risk of pulpal exposure. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Incomparision with caries detector dye, Residual caries detection by DIAGNOdent Pen is more consistent with tactile examination.
AIM: The objective of this study was to determine the association between DIAGNOdent laser and caries detector dye in detection of the remaining caries in restorative cavities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 100 cavities prepared in patients referring to the Department of Restorative Dentistry of Mashhad Dental School. After confirming caries absence by tactile examination, the presence of any residual caries was determined by a laser fluorescence (LF) device (DIAGNOdent Pen) and then by caries detector dye. The data were analyzed through McNemar test. RESULTS: When the cut off value was considered as ≥13, both DIAGNOdent Pen and caries detector dye found 54 cavities as without caries and 12 cavities as carious. There were 32 teeth diagnosed as decayed only by the dye and two cases that were diagnosed as having residual caries only by the DIAGNOdent. The McNemar test revealed a significant difference in the diagnosis of residual caries between the two methods (p < 0.05), as well as significant differences between each method and tactile examination (p < 0.05). When the cut off value was set at ≥25, no significant difference was found between laser fluorescence and tactile examination in residual caries detection (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both DIAGNOdent Pen and caries detector dye can be considered as adjuncts for detecting residual caries in prepared cavities. However, the use of laser fluorescence device can provide results that are more consistent with tactile examination, while relying on caries detector dye may result in excessive removal of tooth tissue, and thus increase the risk of pulpal exposure. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Incomparision with caries detector dye, Residual caries detection by DIAGNOdent Pen is more consistent with tactile examination.