Comparison of Quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) images and images of disclosed plaque for planimetric quantification of dental plaque in multibracket appliance patients

• Published in: Scientific reports 2020-03, Vol.10 (1), p.4478-4478, Article 4478
• Main Authors: Klaus, Katharina, Glanz, Tabea, Glanz, Alexander Georg, Ganss, Carolina, Ruf, Sabine
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 692/308/3187; 692/499; Adolescent; Adult; Canine teeth; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental plaque; Dental Plaque - diagnosis; Female; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Incisors; Jaw; Light effects; Male; Mandible; Maxilla; multidisciplinary; Observer Variation; Optical Imaging - methods; Orthodontic Brackets; Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Teeth; Young Adult
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-61454-9

The purpose of the present cross-sectional clinical study was to check the ability of plaque detection and quantification by QLF-D against conventional digital photographs of disclosed plaque in multibracket appliance (MB) patients. 20 patients were included according to the following criteria: (1) upper and lower jaw treated by MB appliance, (2) patients being 16 years of age or older, (3) all central and lateral incisors as well as canines in situ , (4) absence of developmental defects, carious lesions, surface fillings, prosthetic restorations or recessions greater than 1/3 of root length in central/lateral incisors and canines as well as (5) declaration of consent. QLF-D and conventional photographs were analyzed planimetrically regarding plaque coverage on buccal and oral surfaces of central/lateral incisors and canines. The conventional photographs of stained plaque served as gold standard. On average, in QLF-D pictures 20.7% ± 17.4 of the tooth surfaces were covered with plaque, while the conventional photographs of disclosed plaque presented a mean plaque-covered area of 36.2% ± 23.5. The Bland-Altman plot for both imaging modalities showed a very large inconsistent scattering with both negative and positive deviations. The method discrepancy increased with increasing plaque coverage, thus indicating a systematic method error. On average, the deviation of the methods from the optimal line of accordance was −15.5%. In patients wearing MB appliances, there was no clinical significant agreement regarding the plaque-covered tooth surface depicted by QLF-D respectively conventional images of disclosed plaque. Due to the large method discrepancy, QLF-D is currently not reliable for precise plaque quantification in MB patients.