Detection of intaoral lesions using a fluorescence camera

Thoms, M.

doi:10.1117/12.646287

Cited by 29 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Its performance has been assessed and the fluorescence spectrum at the white spot lesions has shown two dominant emission peaks at 640 and 700 nm. Therefore, the role of fluorophores compatible with porphyrins on the fluorescence spectrum can be assumed [Thoms, 2006]. Owing to the lack of a scale for the interpretation of FC values, we calculated optimal cut-off limits for the various thresholds from the maximum sum of sensitivity and specificity as a function of FC values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…576 pixels with 3 ! 8 bit intensities of RGB channels and resolution of 72 pixels/inch [Thoms, 2006]. These images were analyzed with the software, which quantified the red and green components of fluorescence.…”

Section: Assessments With the Fc Devicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of these methods are based on the phenomenon that caries lesions fluoresce more strongly than sound tissues when excited by light at specific wavelengths [Hibst et al, 2001;Bader and Sugars, 2004;Braun et al, 2005;Thoms, 2006]. Both the first laser fluorescence device (LF) and a more recent pen-type LF device (LFpen) function on the same principle: they emit red light at 655 nm and measure fluorescence of bacterial metabolites in infected dentine [Hibst et al, 2001;Lussi and Hellwig, 2006;.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Performance of Fluorescence Methods, Radiographic Examination and ICDAS II on Occlusal Surfaces in vitro

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the performance of fluorescence-based methods, radiographic examination, and International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) II on occlusal surfaces. One hundred and nineteen permanent human molars were assessed twice by 2 experienced dentists using the laser fluorescence (LF and LFpen) and fluorescence camera (FC) devices, ICDAS II and bitewing radiographs (BW). After measuring, the teeth were histologically prepared and assessed for caries extension. The sensitivities for dentine caries detection were 0.86 (FC), 0.78 (LFpen), 0.73 (ICDAS II), 0.51 (LF) and 0.34 (BW). The specificities were 0.97 (BW), 0.89 (LF), 0.65 (ICDAS II), 0.63 (FC) and 0.56 (LFpen). BW presented the highest values of likelihood ratio (LR)+ (12.47) and LR– (0.68). Rank correlations with histology were 0.53 (LF), 0.52 (LFpen), 0.41 (FC), 0.59 (ICDAS II) and 0.57 (BW). The area under the ROC curve varied from 0.72 to 0.83. Inter- and intraexaminer intraclass correlation values were respectively 0.90 and 0.85 (LF), 0.93 and 0.87 (LFpen) and 0.85 and 0.76 (FC). The ICDAS II ĸ values were 0.51 (interexaminer) and 0.61 (intraexaminer). The BW ĸ values were 0.50 (interexaminer) and 0.62 (intraexaminer). The Bland and Altman limits of agreement were 46.0 and 38.2 (LF), 55.6 and 40.0 (LFpen) and 1.12 and 0.80 (FC), for intra- and interexaminer reproducibilities. The posttest probability for dentine caries detection was high for BW and LF. In conclusion, LFpen, FC and ICDAS II presented better sensitivity and LF and BW better specificity. ICDAS II combined with BW showed the best performance and is the best combination for detecting caries on occlusal surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Assessments With the Fc Devicementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance of Fluorescence Methods, Radiographic Examination and ICDAS II on Occlusal Surfaces in vitro

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the first two collect data for the fluorescence of the lesion directly and in contact with the lesion, while the other two, being cameras, collect data indirectly from the fluorescence image map of the lesion. Several studies have reported on VistaProof, 11,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] and three of them compared it with DIAGNOdent. 11,22,23 Studies comparing QLF and DIAGNOdent devices are limited, [24][25][26] and no study has yet published results on a comparison of VistaProof and QLF.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative In Vitro Validation of VistaProof and DIAGNOdent Pen for Occlusal Caries Detection in Permanent Teeth

Seremidi¹,

Lagouvardos²,

Kavvadia³

2012

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laser/light fluorescence devices were highly reliable for occlusal caries diagnosis in permanent teeth but not superior in accuracy to visual methods. SUMMARYPurpose: Current caries diagnostic tools are neither very accurate nor very reliable for the detection of carious lesions of different depths. Thus, the development of new devices and techniques is needed. The aim of this in vitro study was to validate a newer fluorescence device, VistaProof (VP), and compare it with DIAGNOdent Pen (DP), direct visual (DV) and indirect visual methods (IDV), with respect to accuracy and reliability for the detection of occlusal caries in permanent teeth.Methods and Materials: One hundred seven sites on 41 occlusal surfaces of recently extracted premolars were selected and classified into lesion categories according to Ekstrand's clinical criteria, by direct and indirect visual examination. The fluorescence of the sites was also measured by the two devices, and the teeth were ground through the sites for histological evaluation of their lesion depth. One calibrated examiner of high reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC].0.85) made all of the evaluations. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of each detection method were estimated based on histological examination as the reference method, estimated using cutoff limits calculated on the basis of best agreement between the devices' values and histological examination. McNemar tests and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve , 2012, 37-3, 234-245 analyses were used to compare the validity measures of all detection methods at a=0.05, while the ICC was used to test the reproducibility of the methods based on a second measurement one week after the first.Results: There was no statistically significant difference (p.0.05) between the accuracy of DP and VPs for both enamel and dentin lesions. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) for the two devices were also found not to be different (p.0.05). The reliability of DP was statistically significantly better than VP (p,0.05).Conclusion: The validity of both fluorescence devices were not found to be significantly different and not better than visual methods for the detection of noncavitated carious lesions.

show abstract

“…With this camera it is possible to digitize the video signal from the dental surface during fluorescence emission using a CCD sensor (chargecoupled device). On these images, it is possible to see different areas of the dental surface that fluoresce in green (sound dental tissue) and in red (carious dental tissue) (Thoms, 2006). DBSWIN software is used to analyze the images and translate into values the intensity ratio of the red and green fluorescence.…”

Section: Fluorescence Camera (Vistaproof)mentioning

confidence: 99%