Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Dentistry
Volume 2010 (2010), Article ID 864935, 8 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2010/864935
Research Article

An In Vitro Comparison of Different Diagnostic Methods in Detection of Residual Dentinal Caries

1Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya 42075, Turkey
2Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta 32060, Turkey
3Department of Radiology and Oral Diagnosis, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya 42075, Turkey
4Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya 42075, Turkey

Received 18 August 2009; Revised 4 January 2010; Accepted 13 March 2010

Academic Editor: Alessandro Dourado Loguercio

Copyright © 2010 Nimet Unlu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficiency of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries in excavated cavities. Fifty extracted molar with deep dentinal carious lesions were excavated using a slow-speed handpiece. All cavities were assessed by laser fluorescence(LF) device, electronic caries monitor(ECM), and caries detector dye(CDD) by three independent observers blindly. The measurements were repeated after two weeks. Specimens containing dentin slices 150  m in thickness were prepared for histological analyses. The existence and absence of carious dentin was determined using a lightmicroscope. The average intraobserver accuracy was 1.00 (perfect agreement) for CDD, 0.86 (excellent agreement) for ECM, and 0.50 (good agreement) for LF. The average interobserver accuracy values were 0.92 (excellent agreement), (0.36 marginal agreement) and 0.48 (good agreement), for CDD, ECM, and LF, respectively. The average specificity was 0.60 for CDD, 73% for ECM, and 0.50 for LF. The average sensitivity was 0.55 for CDD, 0.85 for LF, and 0.47 for ECM. The average accuracy values were 0.53, 0.51, and 0.81 for CDD, ECM, and LF, respectively. LF had the greatest sensitivity and accuracy values of any of the methods tested. As a conclusion, LF device is appeared to most reliable method in detection of remain caries in cavity. However, because of its technical sensitivity it may susceptible to variations in measurements. To pay attention to the rule of usage and repeated measurements can minimize such variations in clinical practice. It was concluded that LF is an improvement on the currently available aids for residual caries detection.