Endocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2019
Efficacy of Fluorescence Technology vs Conventional Oral Examination for the Early Detection of Oral Pre-Malignant Lesions. A Clinical Comparative Study.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Saini Rajiv, Cantore Stefania, Saini Sugandha R, Mastrangelo Filiberto, Ballini Andrea, Santacroce Luigi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Oral cancer is one of the most common malignancies that affect human beings across the world and early detection of oral cancer is believed to reduce the morbidity significantly. Fluorescence diagnosis is emerging as a promising method in the differentiation of cancerous lesions and thus helping in the determination of resolution for the surgical resection of affected area of malignancy very accurately. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of an autofluorescence hand held device (OralID) to detect oral premalignant lesions.
METHODS: 98 potentially high-risk oral cancer patients were divided into two groups (n=49/group). Both the groups were first examined by conventional oral examination under white light and oral findings were noted. Subjects under group B were further examined under fluorescence light through hand held device, i.e. OralID. After the examinations, a surgical biopsy sample was taken from the suspected lesions under local anaesthesia from both the groups to confirm the diagnosis through histopathological analysis.
RESULTS: The positive potential malignant lesions (PMLs) observed in Group A when compared with biopsy reporting was 89.47% true positive while in Group B was 95.24%. The sensitivity reported of Group A was 89.47% and Group B was 97.56%. We observed 8.09% more sensitivity and 11.36% more specificity when we incorporate adjunctive the fluorescence examination using OralID.
CONCLUSION: Results from this study suggests that OralID is a true adjunct to conventional oral examination in detecting early potential malignant changes in subjects visiting for regular dental check-up.
METHODS: 98 potentially high-risk oral cancer patients were divided into two groups (n=49/group). Both the groups were first examined by conventional oral examination under white light and oral findings were noted. Subjects under group B were further examined under fluorescence light through hand held device, i.e. OralID. After the examinations, a surgical biopsy sample was taken from the suspected lesions under local anaesthesia from both the groups to confirm the diagnosis through histopathological analysis.
RESULTS: The positive potential malignant lesions (PMLs) observed in Group A when compared with biopsy reporting was 89.47% true positive while in Group B was 95.24%. The sensitivity reported of Group A was 89.47% and Group B was 97.56%. We observed 8.09% more sensitivity and 11.36% more specificity when we incorporate adjunctive the fluorescence examination using OralID.
CONCLUSION: Results from this study suggests that OralID is a true adjunct to conventional oral examination in detecting early potential malignant changes in subjects visiting for regular dental check-up.