Effect of Different Contact Materials on Approximal Caries Detection by Laser Fluorescence and Light-Emitting Diode Devices.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of the adjacent tooth surface on pen type laser fluorescence (LFpen) and light-emitting diode (LED) device readings in detecting approximal caries lesions in permanent teeth.


BACKGROUND
Early detection of noncavitated dental caries is important, because disease progression can be easily halted at this stage with certain applications, such as fluoride therapy, antibacterial therapy, dietary changes, or low-intensity laser irradiation.


METHODS
A total of 87 permanent molars with 156 approximal surfaces were assessed with LED- and LF-based devices in contact with sound tooth surfaces (the control group) as well as approximal amalgam, composite, zirconia, and full ceramic restorations. All teeth were assessed once by one trained examiner. After the LF and LED assessments, the teeth were histologically evaluated using stereomicroscopy as the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve were calculated according to the appropriate thresholds (T1, sound surface or enamel caries; T2, dentin caries).


RESULTS
For the LFpen device, higher sensitivity and accuracy was found when the adjacent surface was sound at the T1 threshold and no significant differences were found among accuracy at the T2 threshold. For the LED-based device, no significant differences were found among sensitivities at the T1 threshold. At the T2 threshold, specificity was higher when the adjacent tooth had a zirconia restoration.


CONCLUSIONS
It was found that both devices could be used effectively for evaluating approximal surfaces with adjacent restored teeth, regardless of the different kinds of restorative materials.
1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Gaziantep University Faculty of Dentistry , Gaziantep, Turkey .
A Semih
AS
Ozsevik
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Gaziosmanpasa University Faculty of Dentistry , Tokat, Turkey .
Emine Sirin
ES
Kararslan
3 Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Gaziantep University Faculty of Dentistry , Gaziantep, Turkey .
Ali Murat
AM
Aktan
4 Department of Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Suleyman Demirel University Faculty of Dentistry , Isparta, Turkey .
Esin
E
Bozdemir
5 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Abant Izzet Baysal University Faculty of Dentistry ,, Bolu, Turkey .
Fatma
F
Cebe
6 Department of Prosthodontics, Gaziantep University Faculty of Dentistry , Gaziantep, Turkey .
Fatih
F
Sarı
D003731:Dental Caries / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D003804:Dentin / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000473:pathology; D005453:Fluorescence; D006801:Humans; D061848:Optical Imaging; D012372:ROC Curve; D013499:Surface Properties
D003764:Dental Materials