Journal of endodontics · 2025
Clinical Validation of Smartphone-Enabled Pulse Oximetry for Objective Pulp Vitality Assessment: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Caldeira Celso Luiz, Diaz Zamalloa Stephanie Isabel, Guimaro Sakitani Claudia Regina, Barletta Fernando Branco, Holzhausen Marinella
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Pulse oximetry exhibits great potential for use in endodontic diagnosis as an effective method to assess pulp vitality. Cell phone-integrated oximeters represent an emerging alternative that may offer greater accessibility. This study aimed to investigate the relation between pulp oxygenation rates (%SpO2) and clinical diagnosis of healthy pulp (HP), reversible pulpitis (RP), symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (IP), or pulp necrosis (PN), comparing 2 pulse oximeters (conventional [PO1] and mobile-connected).
METHODS: Thirty affected premolars were grouped according to the clinical diagnosis of RP, IP, or PN and compared to vitality diagnosis by %SpO2 obtained by both pulse oximeters: PO1 and by smartphone-based (PO2). For each affected tooth, 2 additional teeth (adjacent and contralateral) with HP were tested. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test.
RESULTS: The mean %SpO2 values measured by PO1 were 87.7% for RP, 80.5% for IP, 73.2% for PN, and 91.89% for HP. Corresponding values obtained with PO2 were 85.6% (RP), 79.3% (IP), 72.1% (PN), and 90.1% (HP). Significant differences in %SpO2 were observed among RP, IP, and PN groups (P < .05), but not between healthy control subgroups (adjacent and contralateral). PO1 consistently recorded higher oxygen saturation than PO2 across all clinical conditions (P < .05), demonstrating superior discriminatory capability.
CONCLUSIONS: Both pulse oximeters demonstrated significant clinical value for pulp vitality assessment and differentiation of pulpal inflammation stages and necrosis. The smartphone-adapted oximeter has proven to be comparable to PO1 in diagnostic performance, while offering data collection efficiency and clinical workflow integration.
METHODS: Thirty affected premolars were grouped according to the clinical diagnosis of RP, IP, or PN and compared to vitality diagnosis by %SpO2 obtained by both pulse oximeters: PO1 and by smartphone-based (PO2). For each affected tooth, 2 additional teeth (adjacent and contralateral) with HP were tested. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test.
RESULTS: The mean %SpO2 values measured by PO1 were 87.7% for RP, 80.5% for IP, 73.2% for PN, and 91.89% for HP. Corresponding values obtained with PO2 were 85.6% (RP), 79.3% (IP), 72.1% (PN), and 90.1% (HP). Significant differences in %SpO2 were observed among RP, IP, and PN groups (P < .05), but not between healthy control subgroups (adjacent and contralateral). PO1 consistently recorded higher oxygen saturation than PO2 across all clinical conditions (P < .05), demonstrating superior discriminatory capability.
CONCLUSIONS: Both pulse oximeters demonstrated significant clinical value for pulp vitality assessment and differentiation of pulpal inflammation stages and necrosis. The smartphone-adapted oximeter has proven to be comparable to PO1 in diagnostic performance, while offering data collection efficiency and clinical workflow integration.