| 세대별 QLF 기기의 평활면 비와동형 법랑질 우식 병소 탐지에 관한 진단정확도 비교 |
|
박석우1, 이형석2, 김상겸3, 이은송4, 5, 김백일6 |
1연세대학교 치과대학 예방치과학교실
2연세대학교 치과대학 예방치과학교실
3연세대학교 치과대학 예방치과학교실
4연세대학교 치과대학 예방치과학교실
5연세대학교 치과대학 예방치과학교실
6연세대학교 치과대학 예방치과학교실 |
| Comparison of fluorescence loss measurements among various generations of QLF devices |
|
Seok-Woo Park1, Hyung-Suk Lee2, Sang-Kyeom Kim3, Eun-Song Lee4, Elbert de Josselin de Jong5, Baek-Il Kim6 |
1Department of Preventive Dentistry & Public Oral Health, Yonsei University College of Dentistry
2Department of Preventive Dentistry & Public Oral Health, Yonsei University College of Dentistry
3Department of Preventive Dentistry & Public Oral Health, Yonsei University College of Dentistry
4Department of Preventive Dentistry & Public Oral Health, Yonsei University College of Dentistry
5Department of Preventive Dentistry & Public Oral Health, Yonsei University College of Dentistry
6Department of Preventive Dentistry & Public Oral Health, Yonsei University College of Dentistry |
|
|
| Abstract |
Purpose
The aim of in vitro study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy to detect non-cavitated enamel caries on smooth surface by using four kinds of the QLF devices. Materials and Methods: A total of 52 human permanent premolars and molars were used. Fluorescence images were captured by the QLF devices (Inspektor Pro, QLF-D, Qraycam, and Qraypen). Fluorescence loss of the QLF was calculated. The severity of lesions was categorized into the following 3 scores using polarized light microscopy: normal (S), enamel demineralization to outer half of enamel (D1), and inner half of the enamel up to the dentin-enamel junction (D2). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the fluorescence loss among the QLF devices. Spearman rank correlation coefficient between histological scores and fluorescence loss of the devices was calculated. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) were calculated to compare their diagnostic accuracies. Results: The correlation coefficients between histological scores and the fluorescence loss of the devices showed 0.77 to 0.81 (P < 0.001). All histological scores, the fluorescence loss among the devices showed no statistical difference. Among the devices, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values of the fluorescence loss showed 0.84 to 0.94, 0.76 to 0.90, and 0.90 to 0.92, respectively. Conclusions: All QLF devices had no difference with excellent diagnostic accuracies to detect non-cavitated enamel caries on smooth surface. |
| Key Words:
Inspektor Pro;QLF-D;Qraycam;Qraypen;Quantitative light-induced fluorescence;Validity; |
|
PDF Links
Full text via DOI
Download Citation
