open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 0376-4672
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.
1. Clara J, Bourgeois D, Muller-Bolla M. DMF from WHO basic methods to ICDAS II advanced methods:a systematic review of literature. Odontostomatol Trop 2012; 35(139):5-11
2. Pitts NB. Are we ready to move from operative to non-operative/preventive treatment of dental caries in clinical practice? Caries Res 2004; 38(3):294-304
3. Gomez J, Tellez M, Pretty IA, et al. Non-cavitated carious lesions detection methods: a systematic review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2013; 41(1):54-66
4. Konig K, Fleiviming G, Hibst R. Laser-induced autofluorescence spectroscopy of dental caries. Cell Mol Biol 1998; 44(8):1293-1300
5. Braga MM, Mendes FM, Ekstrand KR. Detection activity assessment and diagnosis of dental caries lesions. Dent Clin North Am 2010; 54(3):479-493
6. Ko HY, Kang SM, Kim HE, et al. Validation of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLFD)for the detection of approximal caries in vitro. J Dent 2015; 43(5):568-575
7. Aljehani A, Yang L, Shi XQ. In vitro quantification of smooth surface caries with DIAGNOdent and the DIAGNOdent pen. Acta Odontol Scand 2007; 65(1):60-63
8. Pretty IA. Caries detection and diagnosis: novel technologies. J Dent 2006; 34(10):727-739
9. van der Veen MH. Detecting short-term changes in the activity of caries lesions with the aid of new technologies. Curr Oral Health Rep 2015; 2(2):102-109
10. Angmar-Mansson B, ten Bosch JJ. Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF): a method for assessment of incipient caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2001; 30(6):298-307
11. Bjelkhagen H, Sundstrom F, Angmar-Mansson B, Ryden H. Early detection of enamel caries by the luminescence excited by visible laser light. Swed Dent J 1982; 6(1):1-7
12. van der Veen MH, de Josselin de Jong E. Application of quantitative light-induced fluorescence for assessing early caries lesions. Monogr Oral Sci 2000; 17:144-162
13. Stookey GK. Quantitative light fluorescence: a technology for early monitoring of the caries process. Dent Clin North Am 2005; 49(4):753-770
14. Al-Khateeb S, Ten Cate JM, Angmar-Mansson B, et al. Quantification of formation and remineralization of artificial enamel lesions with a new portable fluorescence device. Adv Dent Res 1997; 11(4):502-506
15. Tranæus S, Heinrich-Weltzien R, Kuhnisch J, et al. Potential applications and limitations of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in dentistry. Med Laser Appl 2001; 16(3):195-204
16. Shi XQ, Tranaeus S, Angmar-Mansson B. Comparison of QLF and DIAGNOdent for quantification of smooth surface caries. Caries Res 2001; 35(1):21-26
17. Kim HE, Kim BI. Analysis of orange/red Fluorescence for bacterial activity in initial carious lesions may provide accurate lesion activity assessment for caries progression. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2017; 17(2):125-128
18. de Josselin de Jong E, Higham SM, Smith PW, et al. Quantified light-induced fluorescence, review of a diagnostic tool in prevention of oral disease. J Appl Phys 2009; 105(10):102031
19. Jallad M, Zero D, Eckert G, Ferreira Zandona A. In vitro detection of occlusal caries on permanent teeth by a visual, light-Induced fluorescence and photothermal radiometry and modulated luminescence methods. Caries Res 2015; 49(5):523-530
20. Tagtekin DA, Ozyoney G, Baseren M, et al. Caries detection with DIAGNOdent and ultrasound. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 2008; 106(5):729-735
21. Hibst R, Paulus R, Lussi A. Detection of occlusal caries by laser fluorescence: basic and clinical investigations. Med Laser Appl 2001; 16(3):205-213
22. Kim HE, Kwon HK, Kim BI. Recovery percentage of remineralization according to severity of early caries. Am J Dent 2013; 26(3):132-136
23. Jun MK, Ku HM, Kim ES, et al. Detection and analysis of enamel cracks by quantitative lightinduced fluorescence technology. J Endod 2016; 42(3):500-504
24. Kim YS, Lee ES, Kwon HK, Kim BI. Monitoring the maturation process of a dental microcosm biofilm using the Quantitative light-induced fluorescencedigital (QLF-D). J Dent 2014; 42(6):691-696
25. Lee ES, Kang SM, Ko HY, et al. Association between the cariogenicity of a dental microcosm biofilm and its red fluorescence detected by Quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLFD). J Dent 2013; 41(12):1264-1270
26. Gomez GF, Eckert GJ, Zandona AF. Orange/red fluorescence of active caries by retrospective Quantitative light-induced fluorescence image analysis. Caries Res 2016; 50(3):295-302