M Muller-Bolla1,2, C Joseph3,4, M Pisapia5, P Tramini6,7, A M Velly8, H Tassery9,7. 1. Paediatric Dentistry Department, UFR Odontology, Nice Sophia Antipolis University (UCA), CHUN, 24 av des Diables bleus, 06357, Nice, France. Michele.muller@unice.fr. 2. URB2i, EA 4462, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. Michele.muller@unice.fr. 3. Paediatric Dentistry Department, UFR Odontology, Nice Sophia Antipolis University (UCA), CHUN, 24 av des Diables bleus, 06357, Nice, France. 4. MICORALIS EA 7354, Nice Sophia Antipolis University (UCA), Nice, France. 5. Paediatric Dentistry Department, UFR Odontology, Aix-Marseille-University, Marseille, France. 6. Public Health Department, UFR Odontology, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France. 7. EA 4203 Laboratory, Montpellier University, Montpellier, France. 8. McGill University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, H3T 1E2, Canada. 9. Restorative Department Marseille, UFR Odontology, Aix-Marseille-University, Marseille, France.
Abstract
AIM: To assess the validity and reliability of a recent light fluorescence device, Soprolife® (Sopro-Acteon group) in detecting occlusal caries in children and adolescents and to compare its diagnostic performance with DIAGNOPen® (Kavo). METHODS: A multi-centre study was carried out to validate Soprolife® in 103 children, aged from 5-15 years, on 310 primary and 433 permanent posterior teeth. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP) and the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were evaluated using visual International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) and radiographic examinations as the gold standards. The performance of the Soprolife® was compared with that of the DIAGNOPen® on the same teeth. The reproducibility was assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: When all carious lesions using ICDAS 1-6 were considered, SE, SP and AUC for the Soprolife® were 88.50, 70.73 and 0.84 respectively. The validity was significantly higher for primary teeth (AUC = 0.90) than for permanent teeth (0.80); the validity of the Soprolife® (0.84) was significantly higher than that of DIAGNOPen® (0.80). The inter- and intra-examiner kappa coefficients were 0.87 and 0.85 respectively. CONCLUSION: The Soprolife® was a valid instrument providing reproducible results, particularly for primary teeth.
AIM: To assess the validity and reliability of a recent light fluorescence device, Soprolife® (Sopro-Acteon group) in detecting occlusal caries in children and adolescents and to compare its diagnostic performance with DIAGNOPen® (Kavo). METHODS: A multi-centre study was carried out to validate Soprolife® in 103 children, aged from 5-15 years, on 310 primary and 433 permanent posterior teeth. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP) and the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were evaluated using visual International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) and radiographic examinations as the gold standards. The performance of the Soprolife® was compared with that of the DIAGNOPen® on the same teeth. The reproducibility was assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: When all carious lesions using ICDAS 1-6 were considered, SE, SP and AUC for the Soprolife® were 88.50, 70.73 and 0.84 respectively. The validity was significantly higher for primary teeth (AUC = 0.90) than for permanent teeth (0.80); the validity of the Soprolife® (0.84) was significantly higher than that of DIAGNOPen® (0.80). The inter- and intra-examiner kappa coefficients were 0.87 and 0.85 respectively. CONCLUSION: The Soprolife® was a valid instrument providing reproducible results, particularly for primary teeth.
Authors: T Gimenez; C Piovesan; M M Braga; D P Raggio; C Deery; D N Ricketts; K R Ekstrand; F M Mendes Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Richard Macey; Tanya Walsh; Philip Riley; Anne-Marie Glenny; Helen V Worthington; Patrick A Fee; Janet E Clarkson; David Ricketts Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-12-08