Hanieh Nokhbatolfoghahaie1, Marzieh Alikhasi2, Nasim Chiniforush1, Farzaneh Khoei1, Nassimeh Safavi3, Behnoush Yaghoub Zadeh4. 1. Laser Research Center of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Department of Dental Prosthesis and Implants, Laser Research Center of Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Laser Application in Medical Sciences Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Today the prevalence of teeth decays has considerably decreased. Related organizations and institutions mention several reasons for it such as improvement of decay diagnostic equipment and tools which are even capable of detecting caries in their initial stages. This resulted in reduction of costs for patients and remarkable increase in teeth life span. There are many methods for decay diagnostic, like: visual and radiographic methods, devices with fluorescence such as Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), Vista proof, Laser fluorescence (LF or DIAGNOdent), Fluorescence Camera (FC) and Digital radiography. Although DIAGNOdent is considered a valuable device for decay diagnostic ,there are concerns regarding its efficacy and accuracy. Considering the sensitivity of decaydiagnosis and the exorbitant annual expenses supported by government and people for caries treatment, finding the best method for early caries detection is of the most importance. Numerous studies were performed to compare different diagnostic methods with conflicting results. The objective of this study is a comparative review of the efficiency of DIAGNOdent in comparison to visual methods and radiographic methods in the diagnostic of teeth occlusal surfaces. METHODS: Search of PubMed, Google Scholar electronic resources was performed in order to find clinical trials in English in the period between 1998 and 2013. Full texts of only 35 articles were available. CONCLUSION: Considering the sensitivity and specificity reported in the different studies, it seems that DIAGNOdent is an appropriate modality for caries detection as a complementary method beside other methods and its use alone to obtain treatment plan is not enough.
INTRODUCTION: Today the prevalence of teeth decays has considerably decreased. Related organizations and institutions mention several reasons for it such as improvement of decay diagnostic equipment and tools which are even capable of detecting caries in their initial stages. This resulted in reduction of costs for patients and remarkable increase in teeth life span. There are many methods for decay diagnostic, like: visual and radiographic methods, devices with fluorescence such as Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), Vista proof, Laser fluorescence (LF or DIAGNOdent), Fluorescence Camera (FC) and Digital radiography. Although DIAGNOdent is considered a valuable device for decay diagnostic ,there are concerns regarding its efficacy and accuracy. Considering the sensitivity of decaydiagnosis and the exorbitant annual expenses supported by government and people for caries treatment, finding the best method for early caries detection is of the most importance. Numerous studies were performed to compare different diagnostic methods with conflicting results. The objective of this study is a comparative review of the efficiency of DIAGNOdent in comparison to visual methods and radiographic methods in the diagnostic of teeth occlusal surfaces. METHODS: Search of PubMed, Google Scholar electronic resources was performed in order to find clinical trials in English in the period between 1998 and 2013. Full texts of only 35 articles were available. CONCLUSION: Considering the sensitivity and specificity reported in the different studies, it seems that DIAGNOdent is an appropriate modality for caries detection as a complementary method beside other methods and its use alone to obtain treatment plan is not enough.
Authors: Mariana Minatel Braga; Ana Paula Sturion Chiarotti; José Carlos Pettorossi Imparato; Fausto Medeiros Mendes Journal: Braz Oral Res Date: 2010 Jan-Mar
Authors: Jonas A Rodrigues; Klaus W Neuhaus; Isabel Hug; Herman Stich; Rainer Seemann; Adrian Lussi Journal: Oper Dent Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.440
Authors: Gisele Angnes; Vivian Angnes; Rosa Helena Miranda Grande; Márcio Battistella; Alessandro Dourado Loguercio; Alessandra Reis Journal: Braz Oral Res Date: 2006-02-14
Authors: Tamara E Abrams; Stephen H Abrams; Koneswaran S Sivagurunathan; Josh D Silvertown; Warren M P Hellen; Gary I Elman; Bennett T Amaechi Journal: Open Dent J Date: 2017-12-12