| Literature DB >> 30909442 |
Robert C Lee1, Yaxuan Zhou2,3, Sara Finkleman4, Alireza Sadr5,6, Eric J Seibel7,8,9.
Abstract
Several studies have shown that near-infrared imaging has great potential for the detection of dental caries lesions. A miniature scanning fiber endoscope (SFE) operating at near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths was developed and used in this study to test whether the device could be used to discriminate demineralized enamel from sound enamel. Varying depths of artificial enamel caries lesions were prepared on 20 bovine blocks with smooth enamel surfaces. Samples were imaged with a SFE operating in the reflectance mode at 1310-nm and 1460-nm in both wet and dry conditions. The measurements acquired by the SFE operating at 1460-nm show significant difference between the sound and the demineralized enamel. There was a moderate positive correlation between the SFE measurements and micro-CT measurements, and the NIR SFE was able to detect the presence of demineralization with high sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.85). This study demonstrates that the NIR SFE can be used to detect early demineralization from sound enamel. In addition, the NIR SFE can differentiate varying severities of demineralization. With its very small form factor and maneuverability, the NIR SFE should allow clinicians to easily image teeth from multiple viewing angles in real-time.Entities:
Keywords: demineralization; dental caries detection; micro computed tomography; near-infrared imaging; quantitative enamel imaging; reflectance imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30909442 PMCID: PMC6471210 DOI: 10.3390/s19061419
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Near-infrared (NIR) scanning fiber endoscope (SFE) prototype on a typodont with orthodontic appliances.
Figure 2(a) The image on the left shows the tip of the NIR SFE imaging the test sample with NIR scanning laser light in a spiral pattern. The rigid length containing the vibrating illumination fiber and lenses is 9-mm long and 1.6-mm in diameter. (b) The image on the right shows a NIR SFE digital image displayed on a computer monitor, which matches the field of view shown in (a).
Figure 3(a) Visible light reflectance image and (b) the corresponding µCT section image.
Mean ± S.D., 95% confidence interval, and p-value (two-tailed paired t-test) for raw intensity values from NIR SFE measurements of demineralized bovine enamel samples before and after the application and removal of red varnish (n = 10).
| Before | After | lower CI 1, upper CI 1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1310-nm | 184.2 ± 18.2 | 184.9 ± 17.0 | 0.5909 | −2.3, 3.8 |
| 1460-nm | 156.4 ± 41.3 | 156.0 ± 42.0 | 0.8942 | −7.1, 6.3 |
1 CI: confidence interval.
Mean ± S.D. for lesion depth and ΔZ from µCT measurements. Groups with the same letters are statistically similar, p > 0.05 in each row (n = 100).
| Sound | 8-h Lesion | 16-h Lesion | 24-h Lesion | 32-h Lesion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesion Depth (µm) | 0 | 18.4 ± 10.6 | 34.2 ± 12.5 | 54.4 ± 8.3 | 73.7 ± 11.8 |
| a | b | c | d | e | |
| Relative Integrated Mineral Loss, ΔZ (vol% × µm) | 0 | 809 ± 589 | 1663 ± 745 | 2687 ± 644 | 3723 ± 910 |
| a | b | c | d | e |
Figure 4Mean ± S.D. for (a) lesion depth and (b) ΔZ from µCT measurements.
Figure 5Raw NIR SFE image of the sample shown in Figure 3. Four sets of images were taken: (a) dry sample imaged with SFE operating at 1310-nm, (b) wet sample imaged with SFE operating at 1310-nm, (c) dry sample imaged with SFE operating at 1460-nm, and (d) wet sample imaged with SFE operating at 1460-nm. The left window in the SFE field of view is the corresponding window labeled on the top. The red square box outlines the region of interest (ROI) where the mean value was recorded for statistical analysis. The same position of ROI was used for all images of each sample. A yellow arrow indicates the trough line dividing two windows shown in an image frame.
Mean ± S.D. for raw intensity, intensity difference between dry and wet images, and lesion contrast values from NIR SFE measurements. Groups with the same letters are statistically similar, p > 0.05 in each row (n = 100).
| Sound | 8-h Lesion | 16-h Lesion | 24-h Lesion | 32-h Lesion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NIR SFE operating at 1310-nm | |||||
| Raw Intensity—Dry | 92.7 ± 31.3 | 108.3 ± 31.5 | 116.9 ± 28.7 | 126.2 ± 31.7 | 130.4 ± 34.3 |
| a | a,b | a,b,c | b,c | c | |
| Raw Intensity—Wet | 91.6 ± 31.2 | 96.7 ± 27.5 | 98.1 ± 23.3 | 99.4 ± 33.1 | 109.4 ± 38.0 |
| a | a,b | a,b | a,b | b | |
| Intensity Difference | 1.1 ± 7.0 | 11.7 ± 13.9 | 18.7 ± 22.6 | 26.8 ± 21.0 | 21.0 ± 22.1 |
| a | b | a,b | c | b | |
| Lesion Contrast 1,2 —Dry | - | 0.11 ± 0.27 | 0.17 ± 0.30 | 0.25 ± 0.21 | 0.28 ± 0.17 |
| a | a,b | a,b | b | ||
| NIR SFE operating at 1460-nm | |||||
| Raw Intensity—Dry | 15.5 ± 15.7 | 36.7 ± 17.8 | 49.5 ± 20.9 | 60.6 ± 26.0 | 62.3 ± 24.5 |
| a | b | c | d | c,d | |
| Raw Intensity—Wet | 11.0 ± 13.8 | 18.5 ± 16.6 | 20.0 ± 17.4 | 18.1 ± 25.7 | 24.7 ± 27.4 |
| a | a | a | a | a | |
| Intensity Difference | 4.5 ± 5.8 | 18.3 ± 19.0 | 29.5 ± 26.9 | 42.5 ± 26.7 | 37.6 ± 26.9 |
| a | b | b,c | c | b,c | |
| Lesion Contrast 1,2 —Dry | - | 0.56 ± 0.40 | 0.65 ± 0.38 | 0.74 ± 0.26 | 0.75 ± 0.25 |
| a | a,b | a,b | b | ||
1 Lesion contrast values were calculated based on individual raw intensity measurement. 2 Number of windows analyzed for lesion contrast was 80 because sound windows were not included (n = 80).
Figure 6Mean ± S.D. for NIR SFE raw intensity measurements taken using (a) 1310-nm and (b) 1460-nm light, and lesion contrast measurements taken in the dry condition using (c) 1310-nm and (d) 1460-nm light. Left (black) bar in each group in raw intensity measurements (a,b) represents measurements taken when the samples were dry and the right (red) bar in each group represents measurements taken when the samples were wet.
Mean ± S.D. for raw intensity measurements of lesion windows subtracted by the measurements of their corresponding sound windows from NIR SFE images in the dry condition using 1460-nm light. Groups with the same letters are statistically similar, p > 0.05 in each row (n = 80).
| 8-h Lesion | 16-h Lesion | 24-h Lesion | 32-h Lesion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative Raw Intensity | 21.2 ± 17.0 | 34.0 ± 23.6 | 45.1 ± 24.3 | 46.8 ± 22.5 |
| (Lesion-Sound) | a | b | c | b,c |
p-value, Pearson’s r, and 95% confidence interval for NIR SFE relative raw intensity measurements in the dry condition using 1460-nm light vs. µCT measurements (n = 80).
| Pearson’s r (lower CI 1, upper CI 1) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Lesion Depth | <0.0001 | 0.52 (0.34, 0.66) |
| Relative Integrated Mineral Loss, ΔZ | <0.0001 | 0.51 (0.32, 0.65) |
1 CI: confidence interval.
Figure 7Plots of NIR SFE relative raw intensity measurements in the dry condition using 1460-nm light vs. (a) lesion depth and (b) relative integrated mineral loss (n = 80).
Sensitivity and specificity analysis for NIR SFE measurements in the dry condition using 1460-nm light. A true positive represents a successful detection of demineralization and a true negative represents a successful detection of sound enamel.
| 8-h Lesion | 16-h Lesion | 24-h Lesion | 32-h Lesion | All Windows | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.9 | 0.95 | 1 | 1 | 0.96 |
| Specificity | - | - | - | - | 0.85 |