No abstract

Objectives The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the conventional illumination method (CONV) and the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) for distinguishing between composite restorations and intact teeth using different fluorescence-inducing devices commonly used for FIT. Materials and methods Six groups of six dentists equipped with one of six different FIT systems each independently attempted to identify composite restorations and intact teeth on a full-mouth model with 22 composite restorations using CONV and, 1 h later, FIT. The entire procedure was repeated 1 week later. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, including 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated for CONV and FIT overall and for each device. The influence of examiner age, method, and device on each parameter was assessed by multivariate analysis of variance. Results The sensitivity (84%, CI 81–86%), specificity (94%, CI 93–96%), PPV (92%, CI 90–94%), and NPV (90%, CI 88–91%) of FIT was significantly higher than that of CONV (47%, CI 44–50%; 82%, CI 79–84%; 66%, CI 62–69%, and 69%, CI 68–71%, respectively; p<0.001). The differences between CONV and FIT were significant for all parameters and FIT systems except VistaCam, which achieved no significant difference in specificity. Examiners younger than 40 years attained significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive values than older examiners. Conclusions FIT is more reliable for detecting composite restorations than the conventional illumination method. Clinical relevance FIT can be considered an additional or alternative tool for improving the detection of composite restorations.

No abstract

No abstract

Distinguishing composite remnants from tooth structure after trauma splint removal can be challenging. This study aimed to compare the Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT) with conventional light illumination (CONV) in terms of accuracy and time required for the detection of composite remnants after trauma splint removal. Ten bovine tooth models containing anterior teeth from 12 to 22 with composite remnants after trauma splint removal were used. These models were examined by 10 students and 10 general dentists. Each examiner assessed the 10 models using CONV or FIT three times with an interval of 2 weeks each using a prototype fluorescence-inducing headlamp with a spectral bandwidth of (405 ± 7) nm for FIT and a dental unit lamp for CONV. The examiners charted the location of identified composite remnants, and the procedure time needed for each method was recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with R 3.2.2 software with a significance level of α = 5%. FIT was more accurate and less time-consuming than CONV (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between dentists and students concerning accuracy (CONV: p = 0.26; FIT: p = 0.73). Students performed FIT significantly faster than the dentists (p < 0.001). FIT is a quick and reliable method of identifying composite remnants after trauma splint removal.