Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics · 2006
Detection of cavitated carious lesions in approximal tooth surfaces by ultrasonic caries detector.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Matalon Shlomo, Feuerstein Osnat, Calderon Shlomo, Mittleman Avraham, Kaffe Israel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: A new diagnostic method for detecting cavitated carious lesions in approximal surfaces with the aid of an ultrasonic caries detector (UCD) was tested for clinical use. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and clinical performance of the UCD system and to compare it with bite-wing radiography by using direct visual inspection during restoration preparation as a validation method.
STUDY DESIGN: One hundred ninety-seven directly inspected approximal sites, 95 as cavitated carious lesions and 102 as intact sites, of adults 22 to 45 years of age were examined by UCD and radiography.
RESULTS: Ultrasonic caries detector sensitivity was 0.82 compared with 0.75 for bite-wing radiographs when the threshold was determined as radiolucency in inner enamel and dentin, and 0.49 when the threshold of radiolucency was in dentin. The specificity of UCD was 0.75 versus 0.9 for radiographs.
CONCLUSIONS: The UCD exhibited a higher sensitivity than the radiographs but a lower specificity. This study presents a new diagnostic tool that can reduce patient exposure to ionizing radiation and improve caries detection.
STUDY DESIGN: One hundred ninety-seven directly inspected approximal sites, 95 as cavitated carious lesions and 102 as intact sites, of adults 22 to 45 years of age were examined by UCD and radiography.
RESULTS: Ultrasonic caries detector sensitivity was 0.82 compared with 0.75 for bite-wing radiographs when the threshold was determined as radiolucency in inner enamel and dentin, and 0.49 when the threshold of radiolucency was in dentin. The specificity of UCD was 0.75 versus 0.9 for radiographs.
CONCLUSIONS: The UCD exhibited a higher sensitivity than the radiographs but a lower specificity. This study presents a new diagnostic tool that can reduce patient exposure to ionizing radiation and improve caries detection.