Methods: Sixty 6th year dental students (at Srinakharinwirot University) were randomly divided into 3 groups of 20. The first group placing classI resin composite restorations using traditional caries detection (visual inspection and tactile sensation), the 2nd group provided the same treatment with the use of caries dye detector, and the 3rd group using Light Induced Fluorescence Evaluator (SoproLife, Sopro) as an assist tool during the caries diagnostic and removal process. Each restoration was evaluated twice by the operator and the same instructor, before and after caries remova. The instructor evaluated all cavities using nine-point evaluation scale. The values were calculated for the differences between the beginning value and the final value. The results for all groups were statistically analyzed using One-way ANOVA at 95% confident level.
Results: When comparing 3 caries detection methods, conventional caries detection gives the least efficient results. Using caries dye detector results in more cavity extension compared to another 2 methods. Fluorescence Evaluator can help reduce degree of cavity extension compared to using conventional caries detection alone, or conventional caries detection with caries dye detector.
Conclusion: Light Induced Fluorescence Evaluator can be used as a complementary diagnostic tool, to assist students when making operative decisions and reduced degree of cavity extension.