To examine how observer’s experience and different caries detection methods influenced the observer’s confidence in placing their diagnosis.
Methods:
The material comprised 80 extracted molars and premolars, presenting as occlusal surfaces, both sound and with a variety of carious lesions. Ten dentists examined the material, five of them had work experience of more than 10 years (average 19 years) and five had less than 10 years (average 5 years). They examined radiographic images, DIFOTI images and teeth visually, on separate appointments. Occlusal surfaces were graded on a 5 point scale: 0= definitely not caries, 1=probably not caries, 2=questionable, 3=probably caries and 4=definitely caries. They were also asked to grade the surfaces on a 5point scale with respect to the extent of the caries lesion
Results:
The more experienced dentists showed greater confidence in placing their diagnoses for all three detection methods. On average, the more experienced group was confident in their diagnosis for 76.5% of surfaces when using DIFOTI, 72% when using radiographs and 64.5% for visual inspection. The results for the less experienced group were 42.8% for DIFOTI, 56.8% for radiographs and 53.8% for visual inspection. The difference was though non-significant between groups or methods. Non-significant difference was observed between groups in the accuracy of their diagnosis concerning the extent of the lesions.
Conclusions:
Increased work experience tends to give more confidence in diagnosing occlusal caries but does not necessarily increase the accuracy of the diagnosis.