BACKGROUND: Detection and diagnosis of proximal caries in primary molars are challenging. AIM: The aim of this in vivo study was to assess the validity and reproducibility of four methods of proximal caries detection in primary molar teeth. DESIGN: Eighty-two children (5-10 years) were recruited. Initially, 1030 proximal surfaces were examined using meticulous visual examination (ICDAS) (VE1), bitewing radiographs (RE), and a laser fluorescence pen device (LF1). Temporary tooth separation (TTS) was achieved for 447 surfaces, and these were re-examined visually (VE2) and using the LF pen (LF2). Three hundred and fifty-six teeth (542 surfaces) were subsequently extracted and provided histological validation. RESULTS: At D(1) (enamel and dentine caries) diagnostic threshold, the sensitivity of VE1, RE, VE2, LF1, and LF2 examination was 0.52, 0.14, 0.75, 0.58, and 0.60 and the specificity values were 0.89, 0.97, 0.88, 0.85, and 0.77, respectively. At D(3) (dentine caries) threshold, the sensitivity values were 0.42, 0.71, 0.49, 0.63, and 0.65, respectively, whereas specificity was 0.93 for VE1 and VE2, and 0.98, 0.87, and 0.88 for RE, LF1, and LF2 examinations, respectively. ROC analysis showed radiographic examination to be superior at D(3) . CONCLUSION: Meticulous caries diagnosis (ICDAS) should be supported by radiographs for detection of dentinal proximal caries in primary molars.
No clinical trial protocols linked to this paper
Clinical trials are automatically linked when NCT numbers are found in the paper's title or abstract.PICO Elements
No PICO elements extracted yet. Click "Extract PICO" to analyze this paper.
Paper Details
MeSH Terms
Associated Data
No associated datasets or code repositories found for this paper.
Related Papers
Related paper suggestions will be available in future updates.