Performance of a recent light fluorescence device for detection of occlusal carious lesions in children and adolescents
- 215 Downloads
To assess the validity and reliability of a recent light fluorescence device, Soprolife® (Sopro-Acteon group) in detecting occlusal caries in children and adolescents and to compare its diagnostic performance with DIAGNOPen® (Kavo).
A multi-centre study was carried out to validate Soprolife® in 103 children, aged from 5–15 years, on 310 primary and 433 permanent posterior teeth. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP) and the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were evaluated using visual International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) and radiographic examinations as the gold standards. The performance of the Soprolife® was compared with that of the DIAGNOPen® on the same teeth. The reproducibility was assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient.
When all carious lesions using ICDAS 1–6 were considered, SE, SP and AUC for the Soprolife® were 88.50, 70.73 and 0.84 respectively. The validity was significantly higher for primary teeth (AUC = 0.90) than for permanent teeth (0.80); the validity of the Soprolife® (0.84) was significantly higher than that of DIAGNOPen® (0.80). The inter- and intra-examiner kappa coefficients were 0.87 and 0.85 respectively.
The Soprolife® was a valid instrument providing reproducible results, particularly for primary teeth.
KeywordsCaries diagnosis Light fluorescence device Children Adolescents
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All of the authors declare that they had no conflict of interest in the conduct of this research.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
All procedures performed in study involving human participants was 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. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee CPP-sud-Méditerranée1 and the ANSM (Agence Nationale de Sécurité des Médicaments et des Produits de Santé).
An informed consent form was validated by ethics committee CPP-sud-Méditerranée1. Informed consent was obtained from all young participants (minor) included in the study and their parents.
No animals were involved in this study.
- American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Ad Hoc Committee on Pedodontic Radiology. Guideline on prescribing dental radiographs for infants, children, adolescents, and persons with special health care needs. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34:189–91.Google Scholar
- American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Guideline on periodicity of examination, preventive dental services, anticipatory guidance/counseling, and oral treatment for infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dent. 2013a;35:E148–56.Google Scholar
- American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Guideline on caries-risk assessment and management for infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dent. 2013b;35:E157–64.Google Scholar
- American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Policy on the use of lasers for pediatric dental patients. 2013c; http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/P_LasersUse.pdf (22 Dec 2015).
- College of Teachers in Paediatric Dentistry (CEOP). Paediatric Dentistry Practice Sheets by M. Muller-Bolla. 1st Ed, Paris: Continuing Education for Dentists, Health Initiatives; 2014 (In French).Google Scholar