| |
The aim of this study was to compare two laser fluorescence methods, KaVo DIAGNOdent and quantitative laser-induced fluorescence (QLF), for detection and quantification of caries on smooth surfaces. Seventy-one noncavitated smooth surfaces from 40 extracted premolars from young teenagers completed the investigation. The teeth were measured by the two devices. In case of QLF, both mean and maximum fluorescence loss were registered. Histological and microradiographic analyses were performed on the cut and ground tooth slices. According to both histology and microradiography lesion depth was classified according to one of five categories and served as the gold standard. The correlation between gold standard and the two laser fluorescence methods was assessed by Pearson's correlation coefficient. The sensitivity and specificity of the two methods on detection of enamel and dentinal caries on smooth surfaces were also assessed. In addition, by using transverse microradiographic technique, the mineral loss expressed as ¢Z was obtained. Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to study the correlation between the two methods and ¢Z. Higher correlation to gold standard in respect of lesion depth was found for QLF (0.85) than for DIAGNOdent (0.73). Regarding sensitivity and specificity on caries detection, the two methods seemed to be comparable, for DIAGNOdent Sensitivityenamel = 0.79, Sensitivitydentinal = 0.63 and Specificity = 0.92; the corresponding values for QLF were 0.76, 0.74 and 0.92. Pearson's correlation coefficient was 0.69 and 0.58 when analyzing the correlation between the mineral loss and QLF and DIAGNOdent, respectively. It was concluded that for caries quantification on smooth surfaces QLF is superior to DIAGNOdent. |