Loading…
Reflected near-infrared light versus bite-wing radiography for the detection of proximal caries: A multicenter prospective clinical study conducted in private practices
The aim of the present prospective multicenter clinical study was to compare the detection of proximal caries with near-infrared light reflection (NILR) versus bitewing radiography (BWR). Intraoral scans were performed on 100 patients in five dental clinics using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Journal of dentistry 2022-01, Vol.116, p.103861, Article 103861 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-7a25ec52d1e5e63d574a5cf94c1fdb051a2d1390882bb75f884f6e5a5eea03923 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-7a25ec52d1e5e63d574a5cf94c1fdb051a2d1390882bb75f884f6e5a5eea03923 |
| container_end_page | |
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 103861 |
| container_title | Journal of dentistry |
| container_volume | 116 |
| creator | Metzger, Zvi Colson, Dana G. Bown, Peggy Weihard, Timo Baresel, Ingo Nolting, Tim |
| description | The aim of the present prospective multicenter clinical study was to compare the detection of proximal caries with near-infrared light reflection (NILR) versus bitewing radiography (BWR).
Intraoral scans were performed on 100 patients in five dental clinics using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element 5D, Align Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA) that includes a near-infrared light source (850 nm) and sensor. Reflected near-infrared light images of posterior teeth were used by the individual dentists to detect proximal caries and the results were compared to the BWRs. In a total of 3499 proximal surfaces of molars and premolars which were examined, 223 carious lesions were detected by BWR, while NILR detected 549 carious lesions. Caries detection using both methods was also done by an expert team of five dentists, highly experienced in NILR image interpretation, who used the same sets of clinically-obtained data. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for caries detection by both the dentists and the expert team. Fifty-nine of the detected carious lesions were clinically treated and the observations during caries excavation were compared with those done with NILR and BWR. Statistical analysis to compare between NILR and BWR diagnosis was performed using non-parametric two-sided McNemar's Chi-Square test with the significance level set at p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103861 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2612394500</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0300571221002840</els_id><sourcerecordid>2612394500</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-7a25ec52d1e5e63d574a5cf94c1fdb051a2d1390882bb75f884f6e5a5eea03923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kdtq3DAQhkVoSTaHJygUQa-91cHyoZCLEJK2ECiEFHonZGm0K-OVN5K8yb5RHrNyNu1lrgZpvpn5Z36EPlGypIRWX_tlb8CnJSOM5h_eVPQILWhTtwWtqz8f0IJwQgpRU3aCTmPsCSElYe0xOuFlTSpWtQv0cg92AJ3AYA8qFM7boEJ-DW61TngHIU4Rdy5B8eT8Cgdl3LgKarveYzsGnNaADaTcwY0ejxZvw_jsNmrAWgUH8Ru-wptpSE5nqRDmdNzO9A6wHpx3OqMxTWaP9ejN9KrE-cy5nUqQo9JzcTxHH60aIly8xTP0-_bm4fpHcffr-8_rq7tCl5ylolZMgBbMUBBQcSPqUglt21JTazoiqMop3pKmYV1XC9s0pa1AKAGgCG8ZP0NfDn2z0scJYpL9OAWfR0pWUcbbUhCSKX6gdN4nBrAyC96osJeUyNkd2ctXd-Tsjjy4k6s-v_Weug2Y_zX_7MjA5QGAvOHOQZBRO_AajAv5aNKM7t0BfwFedKXl</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2612394500</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reflected near-infrared light versus bite-wing radiography for the detection of proximal caries: A multicenter prospective clinical study conducted in private practices</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024</source><creator>Metzger, Zvi ; Colson, Dana G. ; Bown, Peggy ; Weihard, Timo ; Baresel, Ingo ; Nolting, Tim</creator><creatorcontrib>Metzger, Zvi ; Colson, Dana G. ; Bown, Peggy ; Weihard, Timo ; Baresel, Ingo ; Nolting, Tim</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of the present prospective multicenter clinical study was to compare the detection of proximal caries with near-infrared light reflection (NILR) versus bitewing radiography (BWR).
Intraoral scans were performed on 100 patients in five dental clinics using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element 5D, Align Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA) that includes a near-infrared light source (850 nm) and sensor. Reflected near-infrared light images of posterior teeth were used by the individual dentists to detect proximal caries and the results were compared to the BWRs. In a total of 3499 proximal surfaces of molars and premolars which were examined, 223 carious lesions were detected by BWR, while NILR detected 549 carious lesions. Caries detection using both methods was also done by an expert team of five dentists, highly experienced in NILR image interpretation, who used the same sets of clinically-obtained data. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for caries detection by both the dentists and the expert team. Fifty-nine of the detected carious lesions were clinically treated and the observations during caries excavation were compared with those done with NILR and BWR. Statistical analysis to compare between NILR and BWR diagnosis was performed using non-parametric two-sided McNemar's Chi-Square test with the significance level set at p < 0.05. Kappa coefficients were calculated to assess the level of agreement between the two caries detection methods.
Accuracy of NILR detection of early enamel lesions was 88% and that of carious lesions involving the dentino-enamel junction (DEJ) was 97%. Accuracy was found to be higher at 96% and 99%, respectively, when the same data were examined by the expert team. Direct observation during caries-excavation treatment suggested that NILR detected early enamel lesions that were not detectable with BWR alone.
Within the limitations of the present study, NILR was more sensitive than BWR in detecting early enamel lesions and comparable to BWR in detecting lesions that involved the DEJ.
Reflected near-infrared light images that are generated simultaneously with 3D intra-oral scanning may be used reliably for detection, screening, and monitoring of proximal caries, thus potentially minimizing the traditional use of ionizing radiation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0300-5712</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-176X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103861</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34706269</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Bitewing radiography ; Caries detection ; Chi-square test ; Clinics ; Dental caries ; Dental Caries - pathology ; Dental Caries Susceptibility ; Dental enamel ; Dental materials ; Dentin ; Dentistry ; Dentists ; Enamel ; Excavation ; Humans ; I.R. radiation ; Infrared detectors ; Infrared imagery ; Infrared reflection ; Intraoral scan ; Ionizing radiation ; Lesions ; Light ; Light reflection ; Light sources ; Mathematical analysis ; Medical imaging ; Molars ; Near-infrared ; Near-infrared light reflection ; Premolars ; Private Practice ; Prospective Studies ; Proximal caries ; Radiography ; Radiography, Bitewing - methods ; Reproducibility of Results ; Scanners ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical tests ; Teeth ; Transillumination - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of dentistry, 2022-01, Vol.116, p.103861, Article 103861</ispartof><rights>2021 The Author(s)</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-7a25ec52d1e5e63d574a5cf94c1fdb051a2d1390882bb75f884f6e5a5eea03923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-7a25ec52d1e5e63d574a5cf94c1fdb051a2d1390882bb75f884f6e5a5eea03923</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34706269$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Metzger, Zvi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colson, Dana G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bown, Peggy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weihard, Timo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baresel, Ingo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nolting, Tim</creatorcontrib><title>Reflected near-infrared light versus bite-wing radiography for the detection of proximal caries: A multicenter prospective clinical study conducted in private practices</title><title>Journal of dentistry</title><addtitle>J Dent</addtitle><description>The aim of the present prospective multicenter clinical study was to compare the detection of proximal caries with near-infrared light reflection (NILR) versus bitewing radiography (BWR).
Intraoral scans were performed on 100 patients in five dental clinics using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element 5D, Align Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA) that includes a near-infrared light source (850 nm) and sensor. Reflected near-infrared light images of posterior teeth were used by the individual dentists to detect proximal caries and the results were compared to the BWRs. In a total of 3499 proximal surfaces of molars and premolars which were examined, 223 carious lesions were detected by BWR, while NILR detected 549 carious lesions. Caries detection using both methods was also done by an expert team of five dentists, highly experienced in NILR image interpretation, who used the same sets of clinically-obtained data. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for caries detection by both the dentists and the expert team. Fifty-nine of the detected carious lesions were clinically treated and the observations during caries excavation were compared with those done with NILR and BWR. Statistical analysis to compare between NILR and BWR diagnosis was performed using non-parametric two-sided McNemar's Chi-Square test with the significance level set at p < 0.05. Kappa coefficients were calculated to assess the level of agreement between the two caries detection methods.
Accuracy of NILR detection of early enamel lesions was 88% and that of carious lesions involving the dentino-enamel junction (DEJ) was 97%. Accuracy was found to be higher at 96% and 99%, respectively, when the same data were examined by the expert team. Direct observation during caries-excavation treatment suggested that NILR detected early enamel lesions that were not detectable with BWR alone.
Within the limitations of the present study, NILR was more sensitive than BWR in detecting early enamel lesions and comparable to BWR in detecting lesions that involved the DEJ.
Reflected near-infrared light images that are generated simultaneously with 3D intra-oral scanning may be used reliably for detection, screening, and monitoring of proximal caries, thus potentially minimizing the traditional use of ionizing radiation.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Bitewing radiography</subject><subject>Caries detection</subject><subject>Chi-square test</subject><subject>Clinics</subject><subject>Dental caries</subject><subject>Dental Caries - pathology</subject><subject>Dental Caries Susceptibility</subject><subject>Dental enamel</subject><subject>Dental materials</subject><subject>Dentin</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Dentists</subject><subject>Enamel</subject><subject>Excavation</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>I.R. radiation</subject><subject>Infrared detectors</subject><subject>Infrared imagery</subject><subject>Infrared reflection</subject><subject>Intraoral scan</subject><subject>Ionizing radiation</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Light</subject><subject>Light reflection</subject><subject>Light sources</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Molars</subject><subject>Near-infrared</subject><subject>Near-infrared light reflection</subject><subject>Premolars</subject><subject>Private Practice</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Proximal caries</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Radiography, Bitewing - methods</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Transillumination - methods</subject><issn>0300-5712</issn><issn>1879-176X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kdtq3DAQhkVoSTaHJygUQa-91cHyoZCLEJK2ECiEFHonZGm0K-OVN5K8yb5RHrNyNu1lrgZpvpn5Z36EPlGypIRWX_tlb8CnJSOM5h_eVPQILWhTtwWtqz8f0IJwQgpRU3aCTmPsCSElYe0xOuFlTSpWtQv0cg92AJ3AYA8qFM7boEJ-DW61TngHIU4Rdy5B8eT8Cgdl3LgKarveYzsGnNaADaTcwY0ejxZvw_jsNmrAWgUH8Ru-wptpSE5nqRDmdNzO9A6wHpx3OqMxTWaP9ejN9KrE-cy5nUqQo9JzcTxHH60aIly8xTP0-_bm4fpHcffr-8_rq7tCl5ylolZMgBbMUBBQcSPqUglt21JTazoiqMop3pKmYV1XC9s0pa1AKAGgCG8ZP0NfDn2z0scJYpL9OAWfR0pWUcbbUhCSKX6gdN4nBrAyC96osJeUyNkd2ctXd-Tsjjy4k6s-v_Weug2Y_zX_7MjA5QGAvOHOQZBRO_AajAv5aNKM7t0BfwFedKXl</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>Metzger, Zvi</creator><creator>Colson, Dana G.</creator><creator>Bown, Peggy</creator><creator>Weihard, Timo</creator><creator>Baresel, Ingo</creator><creator>Nolting, Tim</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QF</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QQ</scope><scope>7SE</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8G</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>K9.</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>Reflected near-infrared light versus bite-wing radiography for the detection of proximal caries: A multicenter prospective clinical study conducted in private practices</title><author>Metzger, Zvi ; Colson, Dana G. ; Bown, Peggy ; Weihard, Timo ; Baresel, Ingo ; Nolting, Tim</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-7a25ec52d1e5e63d574a5cf94c1fdb051a2d1390882bb75f884f6e5a5eea03923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Bitewing radiography</topic><topic>Caries detection</topic><topic>Chi-square test</topic><topic>Clinics</topic><topic>Dental caries</topic><topic>Dental Caries - pathology</topic><topic>Dental Caries Susceptibility</topic><topic>Dental enamel</topic><topic>Dental materials</topic><topic>Dentin</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Dentists</topic><topic>Enamel</topic><topic>Excavation</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>I.R. radiation</topic><topic>Infrared detectors</topic><topic>Infrared imagery</topic><topic>Infrared reflection</topic><topic>Intraoral scan</topic><topic>Ionizing radiation</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Light</topic><topic>Light reflection</topic><topic>Light sources</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Molars</topic><topic>Near-infrared</topic><topic>Near-infrared light reflection</topic><topic>Premolars</topic><topic>Private Practice</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Proximal caries</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Radiography, Bitewing - methods</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Transillumination - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Metzger, Zvi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Colson, Dana G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bown, Peggy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weihard, Timo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baresel, Ingo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nolting, Tim</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aluminium Industry Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Ceramic Abstracts</collection><collection>Corrosion Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology & Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Copper Technical Reference Library</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Journal of dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Metzger, Zvi</au><au>Colson, Dana G.</au><au>Bown, Peggy</au><au>Weihard, Timo</au><au>Baresel, Ingo</au><au>Nolting, Tim</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reflected near-infrared light versus bite-wing radiography for the detection of proximal caries: A multicenter prospective clinical study conducted in private practices</atitle><jtitle>Journal of dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Dent</addtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>116</volume><spage>103861</spage><pages>103861-</pages><artnum>103861</artnum><issn>0300-5712</issn><eissn>1879-176X</eissn><abstract>The aim of the present prospective multicenter clinical study was to compare the detection of proximal caries with near-infrared light reflection (NILR) versus bitewing radiography (BWR).
Intraoral scans were performed on 100 patients in five dental clinics using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element 5D, Align Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA) that includes a near-infrared light source (850 nm) and sensor. Reflected near-infrared light images of posterior teeth were used by the individual dentists to detect proximal caries and the results were compared to the BWRs. In a total of 3499 proximal surfaces of molars and premolars which were examined, 223 carious lesions were detected by BWR, while NILR detected 549 carious lesions. Caries detection using both methods was also done by an expert team of five dentists, highly experienced in NILR image interpretation, who used the same sets of clinically-obtained data. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated for caries detection by both the dentists and the expert team. Fifty-nine of the detected carious lesions were clinically treated and the observations during caries excavation were compared with those done with NILR and BWR. Statistical analysis to compare between NILR and BWR diagnosis was performed using non-parametric two-sided McNemar's Chi-Square test with the significance level set at p < 0.05. Kappa coefficients were calculated to assess the level of agreement between the two caries detection methods.
Accuracy of NILR detection of early enamel lesions was 88% and that of carious lesions involving the dentino-enamel junction (DEJ) was 97%. Accuracy was found to be higher at 96% and 99%, respectively, when the same data were examined by the expert team. Direct observation during caries-excavation treatment suggested that NILR detected early enamel lesions that were not detectable with BWR alone.
Within the limitations of the present study, NILR was more sensitive than BWR in detecting early enamel lesions and comparable to BWR in detecting lesions that involved the DEJ.
Reflected near-infrared light images that are generated simultaneously with 3D intra-oral scanning may be used reliably for detection, screening, and monitoring of proximal caries, thus potentially minimizing the traditional use of ionizing radiation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>34706269</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103861</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0300-5712 |
| ispartof | Journal of dentistry, 2022-01, Vol.116, p.103861, Article 103861 |
| issn | 0300-5712 1879-176X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2612394500 |
| source | ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2022-2024 |
| subjects | Accuracy Bitewing radiography Caries detection Chi-square test Clinics Dental caries Dental Caries - pathology Dental Caries Susceptibility Dental enamel Dental materials Dentin Dentistry Dentists Enamel Excavation Humans I.R. radiation Infrared detectors Infrared imagery Infrared reflection Intraoral scan Ionizing radiation Lesions Light Light reflection Light sources Mathematical analysis Medical imaging Molars Near-infrared Near-infrared light reflection Premolars Private Practice Prospective Studies Proximal caries Radiography Radiography, Bitewing - methods Reproducibility of Results Scanners Sensitivity and Specificity Statistical analysis Statistical tests Teeth Transillumination - methods |
| title | Reflected near-infrared light versus bite-wing radiography for the detection of proximal caries: A multicenter prospective clinical study conducted in private practices |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T14%3A27%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reflected%20near-infrared%20light%20versus%20bite-wing%20radiography%20for%20the%20detection%20of%20proximal%20caries:%20A%20multicenter%20prospective%20clinical%20study%20conducted%20in%20private%20practices&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20dentistry&rft.au=Metzger,%20Zvi&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=116&rft.spage=103861&rft.pages=103861-&rft.artnum=103861&rft.issn=0300-5712&rft.eissn=1879-176X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103861&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2612394500%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c432t-7a25ec52d1e5e63d574a5cf94c1fdb051a2d1390882bb75f884f6e5a5eea03923%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2612394500&rft_id=info:pmid/34706269&rfr_iscdi=true |