The effect of multiple examinations on the diagnosis of approximal caries and the restoration of approximal surfaces

• Published in: Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology and endodontics oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology and endodontics, 1999-03, Vol.87 (3), p.386-391
• Main Authors: Heaven, T.J., Firestone, A.R., Weems, R.A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Decision Making; Dental Caries - diagnostic imaging; Dental Restoration, Permanent - statistics & numerical data; Dentistry; Facial bones, jaws, teeth, parodontium: diseases, semeiology; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Medical sciences; Non tumoral diseases; Observer Variation; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; Radiography, Bitewing; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Unnecessary Procedures
• ISSN: 1079-2104; 1528-395X
• DOI: 10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70229-5

Objective. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of multiple examinations on sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis and restoration of approximal caries. Study Design. In 2 studies, dentists examined bitewing radiographic films for approximal caries and the need for restoration. To model the clinical situation of multiple examinations over time, all groups of combinations of 2 to 10 dentists were constructed. Mean sensitivity and specificity were determined. In addition, 2 new variables were created: the first, “sensitivity any,” was calculated by assigning a correct diagnosis for disease if any dentist in the group identified the diseased surface correctly; the second, “specificity all,” was calculated by assigning a correct response only when all dentists in the group correctly identify a nondiseased surface. Results. The sensitivity and specificity means were the same for all group sizes. The “sensitivity any” means increased monotonically from group size 1 to group size 10, whereas the “specificity all” means decreased continually. There was a statistically significant difference between sensitivity and “sensitivity any” and between specificity and “specificity all” for all group sizes in both studies. Conclusions. Multiple examinations increase the number of carious surfaces correctly diagnosed and the number of surfaces appropriately restored; however, multiple examinations also increase the number of sound surfaces diagnosed as carious and the number of intact surfaces receiving restorations.( Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:386-91)