Advertisement

Accuracy of tactile assessment in order to detect proximal cavitation of caries lesions in vitro

  • S. Paris
  • F. Schwendicke
  • V. Soviero
  • H. Meyer-LueckelEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

Discriminating non-cavitated from cavitated proximal lesions without tooth separation is only limitedly possible using visual-radiographic assessment alone. We evaluated how additional tactile assessment might increase the accuracy of this discrimination in vitro.

Methods

Surface integrity of 46 primary molars with proximal lesions extending radiographically into outer third of dentin (ICDAS-codes: 2 n = 34, 3 n = 8 and 5 n = 4) were mounted in groups of two in manikin heads and independently assessed by three examiners using visual-radiographic and additional tactile assessment using a cow-horn-ended explorer with or without gingival displacement. After examination, lesion surfaces were evaluated for possible damage using scanning-electronic microscopy. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed for evaluating if tactile assessment and gingival displacement significantly affected accuracy.

Results

Tactile assessment significantly increased sensitivity of detecting cavities (p < 0.001, ANOVA), but decreased specificity (p < 0.05). Sensitivities/specificities varied between 33 (8)%/96 (1)% and 86 (6)%/84 (5)%. Gingival displacement had no significant impact on accuracy (p > 0.05). Scanning-electron microscopy revealed no cavitation.

Conclusions

In vitro, tactile assessment of proximal surfaces was useful and safe.

Clinical relevance

Analysis of the cavitation level by using a cow-horn-ended probe might be leading to useful information in addition to bitewing assessment under clinical circumstances.

Keywords

Caries Detection Diagnosis Proximal lesion Explorer Probing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mrs. Regina Marquardt for her help with mounting and preparing the teeth as well as generating the SEM images. We are grateful to Dr. Julian Lausch (mentioned as “JL” in the manuscript) who served as an examiner.

Funding

This study was funded by the authors and their institutions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The use of the teeth was ethically approved (D444/10).

Informed consent

Informed consent for the use of the teeth was provided under the ethics approval D444/10.

References

  1. 1.
    Gordan VV, Riley JL 3rd, Carvalho RM, Snyder J, Sanderson JL, Anderson M, Gilbert GH, Group DC (2011) Methods used by dental practice-based research network (DPBRN) dentists to diagnose dental caries. Oper Dent 36:2–11.  https://doi.org/10.2341/10-137-CR CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baelum V, Hintze H, Wenzel A, Danielsen B, Nyvad B (2012) Implications of caries diagnostic strategies for clinical management decisions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 40:257–266.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2011.00655.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Featherstone JD (2004) The caries balance: the basis for caries management by risk assessment. Oral Health Prev Dent 2(Suppl 1):259–264Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hintze H, Lussi A, Cuisinier F, Nyvad B (2015) Additional caries detection methods. In: Fejerskov O, Nyvad B, Kidd EAM (eds) Dental caries: the disease and its clinical management, 3rd edn. Wiley Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuhnisch J, Sochtig F, Pitchika V, Laubender R, Neuhaus KW, Lussi A, Hickel R (2016) In vivo validation of near-infrared light transillumination for interproximal dentin caries detection. Clin Oral Investig 20:821–829.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1559-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nyvad B, Machiulskiene V, Soviero VM, Baelum V (2015) Visual-tactile caries diagnosis. In: Fejerskov O, Nyvad B, Kidd EAM (eds) Dental caries: the disease and its clinical management, 3rd edn. Wiley Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwendicke F, Tzschoppe M, Paris S (2015) Radiographic caries detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 43:924–933.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekstrand K, Qvist V, Thylstrup A (1987) Light microscope study of the effect of probing in occlusal surfaces. Caries Res 21:368–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kuhnisch J, Dietz W, Stosser L, Hickel R, Heinrich-Weltzien R (2007) Effects of dental probing on occlusal surfaces--a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Caries Res 41:43–48.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000096104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mattos-Silveira J, Oliveira MM, Matos R, Moura-Netto C, Mendes FM, Braga MM (2016) Do the ball-ended probe cause less damage than sharp explorers?-an ultrastructural analysis. BMC Oral Health 16:39.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0197-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zentrale-Ethikkommission (2003) Stellungnahme: [The use of human body materials for the purposes of medical research]. http://www.zentrale-ethikkommission.de/stellungnahmen/koerpermaterialien/. Accessed 27 Dec 2018
  12. 12.
    Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M, Amaya A, Sen A, Hasson H, Pitts NB (2007) The international caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS): an integrated system for measuring dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 35:170–178.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00347.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haak R, Wicht MJ (2012) Radiographic and other additional diagnostic methods. In: Meyer-Lueckel H, Paris S, Ekstrand K (eds) Caries Science and clinical practice. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pitts NB, Rimmer PA (1992) An in vivo comparison of radiographic and directly assessed clinical caries status of posterior approximal surfaces in primary and permanent teeth. Caries Res 26:146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pitts NB, Evans DJ, Nugent ZJ, Pine CM (2002) The dental caries experience of 12-year-old children in England and Wales. Surveys coordinated by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry in 2000/2001. Community Dent Health 19:46–53Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwendicke F, Paris S, Stolpe M (2015) Detection and treatment of proximal caries lesions: milieu-specific cost-effectiveness analysis. J Dent 43:647–655.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mejare I, Grondahl HG, Carlstedt K, Grever AC, Ottosson E (1985) Accuracy at radiography and probing for the diagnosis of proximal caries. Scand J Dent Res 93:178–184Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bader JD, Shugars DA, Bonito AJ (2001) A systematic review of selected caries prevention and management methods. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 29:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ribeiro AA, Purger F, Rodrigues JA, Oliveira PR, Lussi A, Monteiro AH, Alves HD, Assis JT, Vasconcellos AB (2015) Influence of contact points on the performance of caries detection methods in approximal surfaces of primary molars: an in vivo study. Caries Res 49:99–108.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000368562 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    De Araujo FB, De Araujo DR, Dos Santos CK, De Souza MA (1996) Diagnosis of approximal caries in primary teeth: radiographic versus clinical examination using tooth separation. Am J Dent 9:54–56Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mejare I, Stenlund H, Zelezny-Holmlund C (2004) Caries incidence and lesion progression from adolescence to young adulthood: a prospective 15-year cohort study in Sweden. Caries Res 38:130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lussi A (1993) Comparison of different methods for the diagnosis of fissure caries without cavitation. Caries Res 27:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wagner J, Thomas G, Stanford C (2003) Forces exerted by a conventional dental explorer during clinical examination. Caries Res 37:365–368.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000072169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Neuhaus KW, Jost F, Perrin P, Lussi A (2015) Impact of different magnification levels on visual caries detection with ICDAS. J Dent 43:1559–1564.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.09.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mitropoulos P, Rahiotis C, Kakaboura A, Vougiouklakis G (2012) The impact of magnification on occlusal caries diagnosis with implementation of the ICDAS II criteria. Caries Res 46:82–86.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000335988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ekstrand KR, Luna LE, Promisiero L, Cortes A, Cuevas S, Reyes JF, Torres CE, Martignon S (2011) The reliability and accuracy of two methods for proximal caries detection and depth on directly visible proximal surfaces: an in vitro study. Caries Res 45:93–99.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000324439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Paris
    • 1
  • F. Schwendicke
    • 1
  • V. Soviero
    • 2
  • H. Meyer-Lueckel
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Operative and Preventive DentistryCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Preventive and Community DentistryUniversidade do Estado do Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental MedicineUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations