IADR Abstract Archives
Agreement of various diagnostic tools in diagnosing dentine hypersensitivity
Objectives: The Objective of this study was to evaluate agreement of tactile tests with Yeaple probe – “gold standard” compared to Explorer probe and Cold Air Blast in diagnosing dentine hypersensitivity (DH) among Vietnamese patients.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 370 dental patients (155 males and 215 females) in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, aged between 18 to 65 years old in year 2014. Each patient was measured and recorded Dentine hypersensitivity by 3 tactile methods: explorer probe (VRS scale), Yeaple Probe (Yeaple Probe Index) and cold air blast (Schiff scale) in sequence. The rest between methods was given 30 minutes. The agreements between three tools regarding dentine hypersensitivity were assessed by using Kappa Agreement. Sensitivity and Specificity were applied.
Results: Prevalence of DH in the group of patients was 53.78%, 55.41% and 60.81% corresponding with explorer probe, Yeaple probe and air blast test. The agreement between explorer probe and cold air blast with Yeaple Probe were 78.11% with Kappa = 0.66 and 68.11% with Kappa= 0.53, respectively. Comparing with Yeaple probe, explorer probe that obtained sensitivity was 92.96%, specificity was 88.3%, the positive diagnostic value was 90.24%, and negative diagnostic value was 91.52% in dentine hypersensitivity diagnosis. Similarly, cold air blast had 85.78% of sensitivity, 91.72%, of specificity, 94.15% of positive diagnostic value, and 80. 61% of negative diagnostic value in the study . There were statistically significant differences (p<0.001) regarding all the parameters between explorer probe and cold air blast. Besides, the area under the curve (AUC) of explorer probe (0.91) were significantly greater than air blast stimuli (0.87) (p<0.001).
Conclusions: The explorer probe and cold-air Blast were suitable for clinical uses in diagnosis of DH, especially in DH surveys in community.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 370 dental patients (155 males and 215 females) in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, aged between 18 to 65 years old in year 2014. Each patient was measured and recorded Dentine hypersensitivity by 3 tactile methods: explorer probe (VRS scale), Yeaple Probe (Yeaple Probe Index) and cold air blast (Schiff scale) in sequence. The rest between methods was given 30 minutes. The agreements between three tools regarding dentine hypersensitivity were assessed by using Kappa Agreement. Sensitivity and Specificity were applied.
Results: Prevalence of DH in the group of patients was 53.78%, 55.41% and 60.81% corresponding with explorer probe, Yeaple probe and air blast test. The agreement between explorer probe and cold air blast with Yeaple Probe were 78.11% with Kappa = 0.66 and 68.11% with Kappa= 0.53, respectively. Comparing with Yeaple probe, explorer probe that obtained sensitivity was 92.96%, specificity was 88.3%, the positive diagnostic value was 90.24%, and negative diagnostic value was 91.52% in dentine hypersensitivity diagnosis. Similarly, cold air blast had 85.78% of sensitivity, 91.72%, of specificity, 94.15% of positive diagnostic value, and 80. 61% of negative diagnostic value in the study . There were statistically significant differences (p<0.001) regarding all the parameters between explorer probe and cold air blast. Besides, the area under the curve (AUC) of explorer probe (0.91) were significantly greater than air blast stimuli (0.87) (p<0.001).
Conclusions: The explorer probe and cold-air Blast were suitable for clinical uses in diagnosis of DH, especially in DH surveys in community.