Validity assessment of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) for the dental plaque scoring system: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between the dental plaque indices measured using quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) and conventional clinical indices that assess gingival status.MethodsFrom among the patients who visited Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital, 33 adults in their 20s who had relatively even teeth were selected for full-mouth QLF-D imaging. The images were used to analyze the QLF-D score and the QLF-D ΔR score. As clinical indices, the gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), and patient hygiene performance (PHP) index were measured. The correlations between the QLF-D score and QLF-D ΔR score and each clinical index were analyzed. Analyses were performed comparing the indices of maxillary and mandibular teeth, the teeth on right and left sides of the mouth, anterior and posterior teeth, and buccal and lingual surfaces of each tooth. Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted (p < 0.05).ResultsThe mean full-mouth QLF-D score was highly correlated with the GI, BOP, PPD, PHP index (p < 0.01). The mean full-mouth QLF-D score showed the highest correlation with GI (r = 0.749) and the lowest correlation with PPD (r = 0.683). The correlations between the QLF-D score were higher in the mandible than in the maxilla and in the anterior teeth than in the posterior teeth, while no significant differences were seen between the buccal and lingual surfaces of tooth.ConclusionsThis study concluded that the correlations between the plaque indices measured for each tooth surface area using QLF-D and the clinical indices assessed were significantly high, and it allowed objective determination of the gingival status. Therefore, the plaque index measured using QLF-D may be used as an alternative to supplement the shortcomings of conventional clinical indices for educating patients about plaque control and continued patient oral care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-018-0654-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of Quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) images and images of disclosed plaque for planimetric quantification of dental plaque in multibracket appliance patients

“…Sample sizes in comparable studies of QLF-D plaque assessment in non-MB patients range from one to 51 patie nts 5,14,15,18,19 , while studies of planimetric plaque assessment independently of the technique used in MB patients comprise between 20 and 52 patients 27,[42][43][44] . Thus, the present sample size of 20 patients was average related to comparable QLF-D studies in non-MB patients 5,14,16,18,19 and small related to plaque assessment studies in MB-patients 27,[42][43][44] . The post-hoc power analysis revealed a power of 66.1%, which is 14% less than the widely used standard of 80% and could have led to a slightly higher beta-error.…”

“…All in all, the authors expected a stronger correlation between QLF-D and disclosed plaque without the large deviations detected in the study. The available literature shows that QLF-D has a good validity and reliability for plaque quantification compared to plaque indices [15][16][17] , despite reported differences in plaque quantification between QLF-D and disclosed plaque 14,18,19 . Although the Bland-Altman-analysis of the present study was slightly underpowered, in any case the large interindividual deviations and the higher scattering with increasing amounts of plaque is unlikely to have been influenced by a higher power respectively a larger patient sample.…”

Use of wide-field optical fluorescence for visualization of oral biofilm in a patient with peri-implant mucositis: a new approach

“…(2,4,6) Thus, biofilm removal is essential for periodontal and peri-implant health allowing longterm success in implant therapy. (4,7,8) Since, biofilm formation around implants and teeth has been established as similar, this also suggests that there is similarity in the clinical characteristics and bacteria involved in periodontal and peri-implant disease. (9,10) Thus, the oral biofilm formation process begins with adhesion of the bacteria to the acquired pellicle on the teeth, implants or prosthetic components.…”

“…(11,14,15) Thus, to allow visualization of oral biofilm was developed, disclosing agent, which is a traditional method for staining of biofilm. (8,11,14) However, disclosing agents may cause staining extrinsically in restorative and prosthetic materials, such as acrylic resin and composite resins and resinmodified glass ionomer, causing aesthetic impairment and patient dissatisfaction. (16,17) Therefore, since these materials are often used in prosthesis over implant, or in screw access-hole restorations, the use of disclosing agents is a problem.…”

“…(11)(12)(13)18) In this sense, quantitative light-induced fluorescence technique (QLF), which uses 405nm wavelength light for illumination of the oral cavity, permits the observation of mature oral biofilm, with orange or reddish coloration, due to the presence of porphyrins produced by certain Gramnegative anaerobic bacteria. (8,15,(19)(20)(21) However, despite the correlation between mature pathogenic biofilm and reddish fluorescence visualization, the use of QLF in the clinical routine still is not cost-effective. Otherwise, wide-field optical fluorescence (WOF) visualization technique has a better cost-effectiveness ratio for use in clinical routine, and applies the same principles of QLF due to the use of light in the same wavelength range.…”