In vitro Evaluation of Magnification and LED Illumination for Detection of Occlusal Caries in Primary and Permanent Molars Using ICDAS Criteria
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Early detection of occlusal caries in children is challenging for the dentists, because of the morphology of pit and fissures. Aim: The aim of the present study was to investigate the use of low-powered magnification (×2.5) and its association with LED headlight illumination for occlusal caries detection in primary and permanent molars using International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) criteria.Methods: The occlusal surfaces of 36 extracted teeth (n=18 primary molars, n=18 permanent molars) were examined using ICDAS criteria with unaided visual examination, low-powered magnification and low-powered magnification plus LED headlight illumination. Three examiners evaluated one occlusal site per tooth twice independently with one week interval, using all methods. The teeth (n = 36) were sectioned and examined under light microscopy using Downer’s histological criteria as the gold standard. Results: The weighted kappa values for inter- and intraexaminer reproducibility for the ICDAS examinations were almost perfect (Kappa values 0.72–0.96) in all three examination methods. The correlation with histology and overall AUC performance (0.96–0.98) of low-powered magnification plus LED headlight illumination was statistically significant in permanent molars. In primary molars, both low-powered magnification (0.82–0.90) and low-powered magnification plus LED headlight illumination (0.87–0.93) showed statistically significant correlation with histology and good to excellent AUC performance than unaided examination. Conclusion: Visual aids have the potential to improve the performance of early caries detection and clinical diagnostics in children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it