Performance of several diagnostic systems on detection of occlusal primary caries in permanent teeth
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Detection of caries at an early stage is unequivocally essential for early preventive intervention. Longitudinal assessment of caries lesions, especially under the opaque preventive sealant, would be of utmost importance to the dental community. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this two-part in-vitro study is to evaluate the performance of multiple detection methods: The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS); two quantitative light-induced fluorescence systems QLF; Inspektor™ Pro and QLF-D Biluminator™2 (Inspektor Research Systems B.V.; Amsterdam, The Netherlands); and photothermal radiometry and modulated luminescence (PTR/LUM) of The Canary System® (Quantum Dental Technologies; Toronto, Canada). All these are to be evaluated on their detection of caries on posterior human permanent teeth for 1) of primary occlusal lesions, and 2) under the sealant of primary occlusal lesions. METHODS: One hundred and twenty (N = 120) human posterior permanent teeth, selected in compliance with IU-IRB “Institutional Review Board” standards, with non-cavitated occlusal lesions ICDAS (scores 0 to 4) were divided into two equal groups. The second group (N = 60) received an opaque resin dental sealant (Delton® Light-Curing Pit and Fissure Sealant Opaque, Dentsply, York, PA). All lesions were assessed with each detection method twice in a random order except for ICDAS, which was not used following the placement of the sealant. Histological validation was used to compare methods in regard to sensitivity, specificity, % correct, and the area under receiver- operating characteristic curve (AUC). Intra-examiner repeatability and inter-examiner agreement were measured using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: 1) Of primary occlusal lesions, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values were respectively: 0.82, 0.86 and 0.87 (ICDAS); 0.89, 0.60 and 0.90 (Inspektor Pro); 0.96, 0.57 and 0.94 (QLF-D Biluminator 2); and 0.85, 0.43 and 0.79 (The Canary System). Intra-examiner repeatability and inter-examiner agreement were respectively: 0.81 to 0.87: 0.72 (ICDAS); 0.49 to 0.97: 0.73 (Inspektor Pro); 0.96 to 0.99: 0.96 (QLF-D Biluminator 2); and 0.33 to 0.63: 0.48 (The Canary System). 2) Of primary occlusal lesions under the opaque dental sealants, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values were respectively: 0.99, 0.03 and 0.67 (Inspektor Pro); 1.00, 0.00 and 0.70 (QLF-D Biluminator 2); and 0.54, 0.50 and 0.58 (The Canary System). Intra-examiner repeatability and inter-examiner agreement were respectively: 0.24 to 0.37: 0.29 (Inspektor Pro); 0.80 to 0.84: 0.74 (QLF-D Biluminator 2); and 0.22 to 0.47: 0.01 (The Canary System). CONCLUSION: Limited to these in-vitro conditions, 1) ICDAS remains the method of choice for detection of early caries lesion due to its adequately high accuracy and repeatability. QLF systems demonstrate potential in longitudinal monitoring due to an almost perfect repeatability of QLF-D Biluminator 2. The Canary System performance and repeatability were not acceptable as a valid method of early caries detection. 2) None of the methods demonstrated acceptable ability in detecting of occlusal caries under the opaque sealant. However, QLF-D Biluminator 2, with limitation to these in-vitro conditions and Delton opaque sealant, demonstrated a fair accuracy AUC (0.70) in detecting of caries under sealants at an experimental threshold of 12.5% ΔF.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».