↓ Skip to main content

Traditional and novel methods for occlusal caries detection: performance on primary teeth

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Medical Science, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Traditional and novel methods for occlusal caries detection: performance on primary teeth
Published in
Lasers in Medical Science, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10103-012-1154-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. F. Souza, T. Boldieri, M. B. Diniz, J. A. Rodrigues, A. Lussi, R. C. L. Cordeiro

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the performance of International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS), radiographic examination, and fluorescence-based methods for detecting occlusal caries in primary teeth. One occlusal site on each of 79 primary molars was assessed twice by two examiners using ICDAS, bitewing radiography (BW), DIAGNOdent 2095 (LF), DIAGNOdent 2190 (LFpen), and VistaProof fluorescence camera (FC). The teeth were histologically prepared and assessed for caries extent. Optimal cutoff limits were calculated for LF, LFpen, and FC. At the D (1) threshold (enamel and dentin lesions), ICDAS and FC presented higher sensitivity values (0.75 and 0.73, respectively), while BW showed higher specificity (1.00). At the D (2) threshold (inner enamel and dentin lesions), ICDAS presented higher sensitivity (0.83) and statistically significantly lower specificity (0.70). At the D(3) threshold (dentin lesions), LFpen and FC showed higher sensitivity (1.00 and 0.91, respectively), while higher specificity was presented by FC (0.95), ICDAS (0.94), BW (0.94), and LF (0.92). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) varied from 0.780 (BW) to 0.941 (LF). Spearman correlation coefficients with histology were 0.72 (ICDAS), 0.64 (BW), 0.71 (LF), 0.65 (LFpen), and 0.74 (FC). Inter- and intraexaminer intraclass correlation values varied from 0.772 to 0.963 and unweighted kappa values ranged from 0.462 to 0.750. In conclusion, ICDAS and FC exhibited better accuracy in detecting enamel and dentin caries lesions, whereas ICDAS, LF, LFpen, and FC were more appropriate for detecting dentin lesions on occlusal surfaces in primary teeth, with no statistically significant difference among them. All methods presented good to excellent reproducibility.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 19 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 58%
Unspecified 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2012.
All research outputs
#15,246,403
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#650
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,897
of 164,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#18
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 164,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.