2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) for the detection of approximal caries in vitro

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

3
44
0
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(49 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
3
44
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This was also the case for conceptual papers and other reviews (not primary studies). Neuhaus et al [2011] 0.73 (0.21, 1.25) Jallad et al [2015] 0.88 (0.80, 0.96) Ekstrand et al [2011] 0.96 (0.83, 1.09) Diniz et al [2011] 0.89 (0.86, 0.92) Souza et al [2013] 0.92 (0.72, 1.12) Gomez et al [2013] 0.85 (0.56, 1.14) Cotta et al [2015] Ekstrand et al [2011] 0.91 (0.78, 1.04) Castilho et al [2016] 0.60 (0.24, 0.96) Ozkan et al [2015] 0.76 (0.38, 1.14) Ko et al [2015] 0.96 (0.94, 0.96) Ekstrand et al [2007] 0. 85 (0.65 Forest plots for meta-analysis and heterogeneity analysis of intra-and inter-examiner reproducibility when ICDAS was used for assessing caries lesion severity.…”
Section: Systematic Review: the Accuracy Of The Icdas In Detectingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This was also the case for conceptual papers and other reviews (not primary studies). Neuhaus et al [2011] 0.73 (0.21, 1.25) Jallad et al [2015] 0.88 (0.80, 0.96) Ekstrand et al [2011] 0.96 (0.83, 1.09) Diniz et al [2011] 0.89 (0.86, 0.92) Souza et al [2013] 0.92 (0.72, 1.12) Gomez et al [2013] 0.85 (0.56, 1.14) Cotta et al [2015] Ekstrand et al [2011] 0.91 (0.78, 1.04) Castilho et al [2016] 0.60 (0.24, 0.96) Ozkan et al [2015] 0.76 (0.38, 1.14) Ko et al [2015] 0.96 (0.94, 0.96) Ekstrand et al [2007] 0. 85 (0.65 Forest plots for meta-analysis and heterogeneity analysis of intra-and inter-examiner reproducibility when ICDAS was used for assessing caries lesion severity.…”
Section: Systematic Review: the Accuracy Of The Icdas In Detectingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…33 Thus, it could be presumed that the variations between the ΔF mean values were due to the differences in the software programs. 34 Visually, CW lesions detected with QLF-D seemed to be brighter than surrounding sound enamel under fluorescent light, and they likely had a ΔF lower than a threshold of 5%. However, these changes were demonstrated by the higher ΔL mean values quantified by the image analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…In contrast, using the Inspektor‐Pro, the mean Δ F values of CW lesions reached −8.0, which is apparently due to the higher sensibility of the Inspektor‐Pro to quantify variations in the surface than in the subsurface of enamel . Thus, it could be presumed that the variations between the Δ F mean values were due to the differences in the software programs . Visually, CW lesions detected with QLF‐D seemed to be brighter than surrounding sound enamel under fluorescent light, and they likely had a Δ F lower than a threshold of 5%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…In clinical dental practice, proximal caries lesions have usually been diagnosed by clinical visual inspection combined with bitewing radiographs [6][7][8][9] . Nevertheless, the detection of proximal caries lesions in posterior teeth is jeopardized by the overlying tooth structures at the marginal ridge, especially in the early stages of the carious lesion 5,9,10 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The laser fluorescence has been used as an alternative method for detecting proximal caries 7,21 . As regards the DIAGNOdent™, demonstrated that the device was better for dentin caries detection, and it did not show good performance in detecting enamel caries, particularly initial enamel caries lesions on the proximal surface of primary teeth 21 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%