IADR Abstract Archives
Face Versus Conventional Methods to Detect Residual Caries
Objectives: Fluorescence–aided caries excavation (FACE) method was shown to be more effective than conventional excavation in the removal of infected dentin. The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of FACE method to detect residual caries by comparing conventional methods in-vivo.
Methods: 301 females and 202 males having caries teeth (129 anterior, 374 posterior/233 molars, 141 premolars) participated in this study. Cavity preparations were done by; grade 4/G-1 (154 teeth), grade 5/G-2 (176 teeth) and postgraduate students/G-3 (173 teeth). After the caries excavation using hand piece and hand-instruments, the presence or absence of the residual caries was evaluated by two independent investigators that were previously calibrated for visual inspection, loop inspection (Keeler,Windsor/UK) and inspection with Facelight (WH, Bürmoos/Austria). Then teeth number, cavity type and presence or absence of residual caries were recorded. Data were analyzed by Pearson’s chi-square test. In all tests the level of significance was set at p=0.05.
Results: Almost half of the cavities prepared were Cl II (20.9% for Cl I, 48.9% for Cl II, 20.1% for Cl III, 3.4% for Cl IV and 6.8% for Cl V). G-1 and G-2 showed higher numbers of cavities left with caries than G-3 for all examination methods. There was not any significant difference between inspection methods and cavity types for all groups (p>0.05). A significant difference was found between visual inspection and inspection with Facelight, inspection with loop and inspection with Facelight and visual inspection and inspection with loop for G-1, G-2 and G-3 (p<0.001). More residual caries was detected with Facelight inspection (46.5%) than either visual inspection (31.8%) or inspection with loop (37.6%).
Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, FACE method could be an effective method in the detection of residual caries.
Methods: 301 females and 202 males having caries teeth (129 anterior, 374 posterior/233 molars, 141 premolars) participated in this study. Cavity preparations were done by; grade 4/G-1 (154 teeth), grade 5/G-2 (176 teeth) and postgraduate students/G-3 (173 teeth). After the caries excavation using hand piece and hand-instruments, the presence or absence of the residual caries was evaluated by two independent investigators that were previously calibrated for visual inspection, loop inspection (Keeler,Windsor/UK) and inspection with Facelight (WH, Bürmoos/Austria). Then teeth number, cavity type and presence or absence of residual caries were recorded. Data were analyzed by Pearson’s chi-square test. In all tests the level of significance was set at p=0.05.
Results: Almost half of the cavities prepared were Cl II (20.9% for Cl I, 48.9% for Cl II, 20.1% for Cl III, 3.4% for Cl IV and 6.8% for Cl V). G-1 and G-2 showed higher numbers of cavities left with caries than G-3 for all examination methods. There was not any significant difference between inspection methods and cavity types for all groups (p>0.05). A significant difference was found between visual inspection and inspection with Facelight, inspection with loop and inspection with Facelight and visual inspection and inspection with loop for G-1, G-2 and G-3 (p<0.001). More residual caries was detected with Facelight inspection (46.5%) than either visual inspection (31.8%) or inspection with loop (37.6%).
Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, FACE method could be an effective method in the detection of residual caries.