title: Comparative in vitro validation of VistaProof and DIAGNOdent pen for occlusal caries detection in permanent teeth.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  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
  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 analyses were used to compare the validity measures of all detection methods at α=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).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Athens, Greece.
authors.forename: Kyriaki
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Seremidi
authors.forename: Panagiotis
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Lagouvardos
authors.forename: Katerina
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Kavvadia
mesh_terms: D019540:Area Under Curve; D003731:Dental Caries / Q000175:diagnosis*; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000473:pathology; D003804:Dentin / Q000473:pathology; D005453:Fluorescence; D006801:Humans; D008027:Light; D023861:Photography, Dental; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity