No abstract

This study evaluated the feasibility of using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS-II) in epidemiological surveys and compared ICDAS with WHO criteria. Two hundred and fifty-two children (36–59 months old) in Amparo, Brazil, were each examined by 2 examiners using ICDAS-II or WHO criteria. Dmf-t, dmf-s, caries prevalence and examination time were calculated using both systems. ICDAS-II was comparable to standard criteria when the cut-off point was score 3. Examination by ICDAS-II took twice as long as by WHO criteria. In conclusion, ICDAS-II, besides providing information on non-cavitated caries lesions, can generate data comparable to previous surveys which used WHO criteria.

This in vivo study aimed to compare the performance of different methods of approximal caries detection in primary molars. Fifty children (aged 5–12 years) were selected, and 2 examiners evaluated 621 approximal surfaces of primary molars using: (a) visual inspection, (b) the radiographic method and (c) a pen-type laser fluorescence device (LFpen). As reference standard method, the teeth were separated using orthodontic rubbers during 7 days, and the surfaces were evaluated by 2 examiners for the presence of white spots or cavitations. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (A_z) as well as sensitivity, specificity and accuracy (percentage of correct diagnosis) were calculated and compared with the McNemar test at both thresholds. The interexaminer reproducibility was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC-absolute values) and the kappa test (dichotomizing for both thresholds). The ICC value of the reference standard procedure was 0.94. At white-spot threshold, no methods tested presented good performance (sensitivity: visual 0.20–0.21; radiographic 0.16–0.23; LFpen 0.16; specificity: visual 0.95; radiographic 0.99–1.00; LFpen 0.94–0.96). At cavitation threshold, both LFpen and radiographic methods demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.55–0.65 and 0.65–0.70, respectively) and A_z (0.92 and 0.88–0.89, respectively) than visual inspection sensitivity (0.30) and A_z (0.69–0.76). All methods presented high specificities (around 0.99) and similar ICCs, but the kappa value for LFpen at white-spot threshold was lower (0.44). In conclusion, both LFpen and radiographic methods present similar performance in detecting the presence of cavitations on approximal surfaces of primary molars.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the survival rate of ceramic and resin inlays, onlays, and overlays and to identify the complication types associated with the main clinical outcomes. Two reviewers searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles published between 1983 through April 2015, conforming to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for systematic reviews. Clinical studies meeting the following criteria were included: 1) studies related to resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays; 2) prospective, retrospective, or randomized controlled trials conducted in humans; 3) studies with a dropout rate of less than 30%; and 4) studies with a follow-up longer than 5 y. Of 1,389 articles, 14 met the inclusion criteria. The meta-regression indicated that the type of ceramic material (feldspathic porcelain vs. glass-ceramic), study design (retrospective vs. prospective), follow-up time (5 vs. 10 y), and study setting (university vs. private clinic) did not affect the survival rate. Estimated survival rates for glass-ceramics and feldspathic porcelain were between 92% and 95% at 5 y (n = 5,811 restorations) and were 91% at 10 y (n = 2,154 restorations). Failures were related to fractures/chipping (4%), followed by endodontic complications (3%), secondary caries (1%), debonding (1%), and severe marginal staining (0%). Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 0.19 (0.04 to 0.96) and 0.54 (0.17 to 1.69) for pulp vitality and type of tooth involved (premolars vs. molars), respectively. Ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays showed high survival rates at 5 y and 10 y, and fractures were the most frequent cause of failure.

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

This in vitro study of occlusal surfaces on primary molars aimed to: (1) evaluate the reproducibility of the Nyvad and ICDAS-II visual systems in detecting caries; (2) to test the accuracy of the systems in estimating lesion depth, and (3) to examine the association between the Nyvad system and the Lesion Activity Assessment system, an adjunct to ICDAS-II. Two samples of extracted primary molars (sample 1, n = 38; sample 2, n = 69) were evaluated independently by 2 examiners. In this in vitro study, evaluation of plaque in the Nyvad system was not possible. Histology (sample 2) was used to validate lesion depth. Area under ROC curves (A_z), sensitivity, specificity and percent agreement of both systems were calculated at D1, D2 and D3 thresholds. Both systems showed kappa for intra- and inter-examiner agreement >0.86 and good correlation with histology: Spearman ρ = 0.73 (Nyvad) and 0.78 (ICDAS-II). They presented similar performances except that ICDAS-II showed significantly higher sensitivity (Nyvad 0.89; ICDAS 0.92) and A_z (Nyvad 0.85; ICDAS 0.90) for the D1 threshold. The correlation between the systems for lesion activity (Cramer’s V) was 0.71. Therefore, both visual systems are reliable and can estimate caries lesion depth on primary teeth. Under in vitro conditions, there is no major difference between the Nyvad system and Lesion Activity Assessment in assessing caries activity.

Anterior malocclusions of primary teeth such as increased overjet and anterior open bite are statistically significantly associated with dental trauma only when inadequate lip coverage is also present.

BackgroundFluorescence-based methods have been proposed to aid caries lesion detection. Summarizing and analysing findings of studies about fluorescence-based methods could clarify their real benefits.ObjectiveWe aimed to perform a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of fluorescence-based methods in detecting caries lesions.Data SourceTwo independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus through June 2012 to identify papers/articles published. Other sources were checked to identify non-published literature.Study Eligibility Criteria, Participants and Diagnostic MethodsThe eligibility criteria were studies that: (1) have assessed the accuracy of fluorescence-based methods of detecting caries lesions on occlusal, approximal or smooth surfaces, in both primary or permanent human teeth, in the laboratory or clinical setting; (2) have used a reference standard; and (3) have reported sufficient data relating to the sample size and the accuracy of methods.Study Appraisal and Synthesis MethodsA diagnostic 2×2 table was extracted from included studies to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy parameters (Diagnostic Odds Ratio and Summary Receiver-Operating curve). The analyses were performed separately for each method and different characteristics of the studies. The quality of the studies and heterogeneity were also evaluated.ResultsSeventy five studies met the inclusion criteria from the 434 articles initially identified. The search of the grey or non-published literature did not identify any further studies. In general, the analysis demonstrated that the fluorescence-based method tend to have similar accuracy for all types of teeth, dental surfaces or settings. There was a trend of better performance of fluorescence methods in detecting more advanced caries lesions. We also observed moderate to high heterogeneity and evidenced publication bias.ConclusionsFluorescence-based devices have similar overall performance; however, better accuracy in detecting more advanced caries lesions has been observed.