Assessment of the Depth of Clinically Detected Approximal Caries Lesions Using Digital Imaging Fiber-Optic Transillumination in Comparison to Periapical Radiographs

Abstract

The aim of present prospective clinical trial was to assess the depth of clinically detected approximal caries lesions using digital imaging fiber-optic transillumination in comparison to periapical radiographs. Material and Methods: One calibrated examiner diagnosed 31 approximal carious lesions in 10 patients with a mean age of 21.8 (SD 1.1) years. The lesions were assessed using digital imaging fiber-optic transillumination (DIFOTI) and digital periapical radiographs (PA). Depending on the depth of the lesions, scores for demineralisation in PA (R) and DIFOTI (F) images were given by two examiners: R0/F0 -no demineralisation, R1/F1 -demineralisation confined to the outer half of the enamel, R2/F2 -into the inner half of the enamel, 3/3 -along the amelodentinal junction, R3/F3 -into the outer half of dentine, R4/F4 -into the inner part of the dentine. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and kappa were calculated. Results: Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between DIFOTI and PA was 0.031 (P > 0.05), kappa was 0.077. In 26% of the cases, DIFOTI showed higher scores of demineralisation, relative to PA. In 36% of the cases, PA showed higher scores of demineralisation than DIFOTI. PA showed demineralisation into the outer and inner half of the dentine in 89% of the cases with underlying shadow and in 70% of the cases with opacities. Conclusions: Digital imaging fibre optic transillumination and periapical radiographs produce evaluations of the depth of approximal caries lesions that do not match.

Recent development of photoacoustic imaging in dentistry: A review on studies over the last decade

“…Dentists generally utilize intraoral radiography to identify and diagnose dental caries. Lasers, specifically fiber-optic transillumination and near-infrared light transillumination, have been recently introduced for non-ionizing caries detection ( Antipoviene et al, 2020 , Litzenburger et al, 2020 , Marmaneu-menero et al, 2020 , Strassler and Pitel, 2016 ). Since PAI employs laser or other non-ionizing radiation sources, it has the potential to be advanced as an alternative imaging modality for the detection of oral diseases, including caries.…”

Fiber-optic systems for the diagnosis of dental pathology: a review. Part I

“…Точно так же остаются нерешенными вопросы о глубине проникновения инфракрасного излучения в зубы и возможная индуцированная инфракрасная флуоресценция, вызванная облучением кариозной зоны инфракрасным светом с длиной волны 830 нм [ 15 ] . Область применения волоконно-оптической трансиллюминации довольно широка, она включает использование в качестве дополнительного диагностического средства для диагностики межпроксимального и окклюзионного кариеса, обнаружения зубных отложений, оценки окрашенных краев композитных пломб, переломов и трещин в зубах, для освещения доступа и устьев корневых каналов во время эндодонтического лечения, в качестве инструмента для улучшенной оценки повреждений мягких тканей, для оценки цельнокерамических реставраций, чтобы исключить любые переломы перед цементированием, для клинической оценки трещин и линий деформации цельнокерамических реставраций, реставраций и естественных зубов, а также для оценки глубины внешнего окрашивания для определения соответствующих рекомендаций по лечению [ 17 ] .…”

Validity of near‐infrared light transillumination for the assessment of proximal caries in permanent teeth

“…The DC showed good potential for the detection of proximal caries clinically. Recent published clinical studies have shown that DC has a higher sensitivity for enamel caries while BWR gave the best prediction of proximal dentine caries 20,21 . Alamoudi et al .…”

“…Recent published clinical studies have shown that DC has a higher sensitivity for enamel caries while BWR gave the best prediction of proximal dentine caries. 20,21 Alamoudi et al performed a cross-sectional analysis of diagnosing cavitated proximal lesions in primary molars and concluded that DC showed higher sensitivity and better accuracy than BWR. 22 However, the significant heterogeneity in the study designs and the reference standards make it difficult to affirm that NIRLT could substitute X-rays in the auxiliary diagnosis of carious lesions.…”

“…22 However, the significant heterogeneity in the study designs and the reference standards make it difficult to affirm that NIRLT could substitute X-rays in the auxiliary diagnosis of carious lesions. Furthermore, among these studies, an in-vitro model cannot completely simulate the intra-oral condition whereas some in-vivo experiments used visual inspection or cavities opening as a reference standard, [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] which cannot be used as a gold standard to accurately assess the sensitivity and specificity of DC. As Macey et al reported, high-quality studies for DC could still be useful becausetheir true effect on the dental examination does not currently seem to have been explored.…”