Alexander Lederer1, Karl-Heinz Kunzelmann2, Katrin Heck2, Reinhard Hickel2, Friederike Litzenburger2. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336, Munich, Germany. aleder@dent.med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present in vitro study was to determine the ability of Diagnocam to detect caries at an early stage and to compare it with digital radiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty proximal surfaces composed equally of sound and decayed surfaces were evaluated by assessing images captured with Diagnocam (Kavo, Biberach, Germany) and digital radiography (DR). All images were assessed twice by two calibrated dentists with a minimum interval of 2 weeks between examinations. The results were compared with μCT scans. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability showed nearly perfect agreement; a high intra-rater reliability was calculated. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients showed a strong correlation of Diagnocam and μCT (0.82). DR and μCT achieved a slightly lower correlation (0.73). The surfaces were categorized into sound surfaces, enamel lesions, and dentin lesions to determine intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), sensitivity and specificity. ICCs between μCT and DR ranged from 0.20 to 0.63. ICCs between Diagnocam and DR were higher in all categories and ranged from 0.56 to 0.83. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Diagnocam achieved mostly higher values than DR. In detecting enamel lesions, sensitivity was 0.36 for DR and 0.59 for the DC. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of Diagnocam were larger than those of DR in all categories. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnocam is more capable of detecting initial proximal lesions than DR and also has a higher sensitivity for dentin lesions. However, caries progression in dentin cannot be reliably determined with Diagnocam. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Diagnocam may be suitable as a supplement to X-ray diagnostics in clinical use.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present in vitro study was to determine the ability of Diagnocam to detect caries at an early stage and to compare it with digital radiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty proximal surfaces composed equally of sound and decayed surfaces were evaluated by assessing images captured with Diagnocam (Kavo, Biberach, Germany) and digital radiography (DR). All images were assessed twice by two calibrated dentists with a minimum interval of 2 weeks between examinations. The results were compared with μCT scans. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability showed nearly perfect agreement; a high intra-rater reliability was calculated. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients showed a strong correlation of Diagnocam and μCT (0.82). DR and μCT achieved a slightly lower correlation (0.73). The surfaces were categorized into sound surfaces, enamel lesions, and dentin lesions to determine intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), sensitivity and specificity. ICCs between μCT and DR ranged from 0.20 to 0.63. ICCs between Diagnocam and DR were higher in all categories and ranged from 0.56 to 0.83. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of Diagnocam achieved mostly higher values than DR. In detecting enamel lesions, sensitivity was 0.36 for DR and 0.59 for the DC. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of Diagnocam were larger than those of DR in all categories. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnocam is more capable of detecting initial proximal lesions than DR and also has a higher sensitivity for dentin lesions. However, caries progression in dentin cannot be reliably determined with Diagnocam. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Diagnocam may be suitable as a supplement to X-ray diagnostics in clinical use.
Authors: Johannes Schindelin; Ignacio Arganda-Carreras; Erwin Frise; Verena Kaynig; Mark Longair; Tobias Pietzsch; Stephan Preibisch; Curtis Rueden; Stephan Saalfeld; Benjamin Schmid; Jean-Yves Tinevez; Daniel James White; Volker Hartenstein; Kevin Eliceiri; Pavel Tomancak; Albert Cardona Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Stephen C Berg; Jonathan Miles Stahl; Wen Lien; Casey M Slack; Kraig S Vandewalle Journal: J Esthet Restor Dent Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 2.843
Authors: Francisco Haiter-Neto; Andrea dos Anjos Pontual; Morten Frydenberg; Ann Wenzel Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2008-01-22 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Jacob C Simon; Seth A Lucas; Michal Staninec; Henry Tom; Kenneth H Chan; Cynthia L Darling; Matthew J Cozin; Robert C Lee; Daniel Fried Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Richard Macey; Tanya Walsh; Philip Riley; Richard Hogan; Anne-Marie Glenny; Helen V Worthington; Janet E Clarkson; David Ricketts Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-01-27
Authors: Jonas Wizenty; Teresa Schumann; Donna Theil; Martin Stockmann; Johann Pratschke; Frank Tacke; Felix Aigner; Tilo Wuensch Journal: Molecules Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Ana Marmaneu-Menero; José Enrique Iranzo-Cortés; Teresa Almerich-Torres; José Carmelo Ortolá-Síscar; José María Montiel-Company; José Manuel Almerich-Silla Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 4.241