International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2019 ) > List of Articles


In Vivo Comparative Enactment of CarieScanPRO™ with Conventional Methods to Detect Occlusal Carious Lesions in the Mandibular Primary Molars

Vimala Devi Popuri, Sreekanth Kumar Mallineni

Keywords : Caries detection, CarieScanPRO™, Occlusal caries, Radiovisiography, Visual International caries detection and assessment system II

Citation Information : Popuri VD, Mallineni SK. In Vivo Comparative Enactment of CarieScanPRO™ with Conventional Methods to Detect Occlusal Carious Lesions in the Mandibular Primary Molars. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019; 12 (4):325-331.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1649

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: To assess the performance of CarieScanPRO™ with radiovisiography (RVG) and international caries detection and assessment system II (ICDAS-II) to detect the occlusal carious lesions in the mandibular primary molars. Methods: Fifty healthy children of age 5–7 years were involved and evaluated for caries using visual ICDAS-II, RVG, and CarieScanPRO™. Operative intervention pit and fissure opening served as a gold standard for comparison of the three methods of examination. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (Az) of the methods were calculated at enamel (D1), dentinoenamel junction (DEJ) (D2), and dentine (D3, D4). Results: At D1 threshold, CarieScanPRO™ showed higher values of sensitivity and accuracy (0.97 and 0.88) and RVG specificity (0.92). At D2 threshold, visual examination showed higher values of sensitivity (0.80) whereas CarieScanPRO™ showed specificity and accuracy of 0.98 and 0.87. At D3, D4 threshold, CarieScanPRO™ showed higher values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (0.1, 0.98, and 0.99). Higher positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and lower false discovery rate (FDR), false-positive rate (FPR) were shown by CarieScanPRO™. The intraexaminer repeatability for CarieScanPRO™ was good with kappa at D1 (0.77) and D3, D4 (0.98). Conclusion: CarieScanPRO™ showed higher reproducibility compared to visual examination and RVG for the detection of enamel and dentinal caries. Higher accuracy of CarieScanPRO™ can be used for longitudinal monitoring of occlusal caries in primary teeth with low sensitivity at DEJ.

PDF Share
  1. Saravanan S, Madivanan I, et al. Prevalence pattern of dentalcaries in the primary dentition among school children. Indian J Dent Res 2006;17:10.
  2. Pitts NB. How Electrical Caries Detection And Monitoring With Cariescan Can Help Deliver Modern Caries Management. Oral Health 2010;34–43.
  3. Attrill DC, Ashley PF. Occlusal caries detection in primaryteeth: a comparison of DIAGNOdent with conventional methods. Br Dent J 2001;190:440–443. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800998.
  4. Sheehy EC, Brailsford SR, et al. Comparison between visual examination and a laser fluorescence system for in vivo diagnosis of occlusal caries. Caries Res 2001;35:421–426. DOI: 10.1159/000047485.
  5. Rodrigues JA, Hug I, et al. Performance of fluorescence methods, radiographic examination and ICDAS II on occlusal surfaces in vitro. Caries Res 2008;42:297–304. DOI: 10.1159/000148162.
  6. Lussi A, Imwinkelried S, et al. Performance and Reproducibility of a Laser Fluorescence System for Detection of Occlusal Caries in vitro. Caries Res 1999;33:261–266. DOI: 10.1159/000016527.
  7. Jablonski-Momeni A, Stachniss V, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of the ICDAS-II for detection of occlusal caries in vitro. Caries Res 2008;42:79–87. DOI: 10.1159/000113160.
  8. Ricketts DN, Ekstrand KR, et al. Relating visual and radiographic ranked scoring system for occlusal caries detection to histological and microbiological evidence. Oper Dent 2002;27:231–237.
  9. Ismail AI. Visual and visuo-tactile detection of dental caries. J Dent Res 2004;83:C56–C66. DOI: 10.1177/154405910408301s12.
  10. Rocha RO, Ardenghi TM, et al. In vivo Effectiveness of Laser Fluorescence Compared to Visual Inspection and Radiography for the Detection of Occlusal Caries in Primary Teeth. Caries Res 2003;37:437–441. DOI: 10.1159/000073396.
  11. Neuhaus KW, Rodrigues JA, et al. Performance of laser fluorescence devices, visual and radiographic examination for the detection of occlusal caries in primary molars. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:635–641. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0427-5.
  12. Ekstrand KR, Martignon S, et al. Detection and activity assessment of primary coronal caries lesions: a methodologic study. Oper Dent 2007;32:225–235. DOI: 10.2341/06-63.
  13. World Health Organisation. Oral health surveys - Basic methods, 4th ed., Geneva: WHO; 1997.
  14. Shoaib L, Deery C, et al. Validity and Reproducibility of ICDAS II in Primary Teeth. Caries Res 2009;43:442–448. DOI: 10.1159/000258551.
  15. Ekstrand KR, Ricketts DN, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of three methods for assessment of demineralization depth of the occlusal surface: an in vitro examination. Caries Res 1997;31:224–231. DOI: 10.1159/000262404.
  16. Francescut P, Lussi A. Correlation between fissure discoloration, diagnodent measurements, and caries depth: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 2003;25:559–564.
  17. Dunkley S, Ashley P. Use of a ranked scoring system to detect occlusal caries in primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 2007;17:267–273. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2006.00807.x.
  18. Dias da Silva PR, Martins Marques M, et al. Accuracy of direct digital radiography for detecting occlusal caries in primary teeth compared with conventional radiography and visual inspection: an in vitro study. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2010;39:362–367. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/22865872.
  19. da Silva RP, Assaf AV, et al. Reproducibility of Adjunct Techniques for Diagnosis of Dental Caries in an Epidemiological Situation. Oral Health Prev Dent 2011;9:251–259.
  20. Kouchaji C. Comparison between a laser fluorescence device and visual examination in the detection of occlusal caries in children. Saudi Dent J 2012;24:169–174. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2012.07.002.
  21. Goel A, Chawla HS, et al. Comparison of validity of DIAGNOdent with conventional methods for detection of occlusal caries in primary molars using the histological gold standard: An in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2009;27:227–234. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.57658.
  22. Huysmans MC, Longbottom C, et al. Impedance spectroscopy of teeth with and without approximal caries lesions – an in vitro study. J Dent Res 1996;75:1871–1878. DOI: 10.1177/00220345960750110901.
  23. Sudha P, Bhasin S, et al. Prevalence of dental caries among 5-13 year old children of Mangalore city. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2005;23:74–79. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.16446.
  24. Haak R, Wicht MJ, et al. Conventional, digital and contrast-enhanced bitewing radiographs in the decision to restore proximal carious lesions. Caries Res 2001;35:193–199. DOI: 10.1159/000047455.
  25. Diniz MB, Rodrigues JA, et al. Reproducibility and accuracy of the ICDAS-II for occlusal caries detection. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2009;37:399–404. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2009.00487.x.
  26. Novaes TF, Matos R, et al. Performance of a pen-type laser fluorescence device and conventional methods in detecting approximal caries lesions in primary teeth – in vivo study. Caries Res 2009;43:36–42. DOI: 10.1159/000189705.
  27. Braga MM, Oliveira LB, et al. Feasibility of the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS-II) in Epidemiological Surveys and Comparability with Standard World Health Organization Criteria. Caries Res 2009;43:245–249. DOI: 10.1159/000217855.
  28. Haak R, Wicht MJ, et al. Influence of displayed image size on radiographic detection of approximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2003;32:242–246. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/17654484.
  29. Zanin L, de Castro Meneghim M, et al. Depth of occlusal caries assessed clinically by fluorescence laser, conventional and digital radiographic methods. Braz J Oral Sciapril June 2005;14:13.
  30. Tencate AR. Oral histology development, structure, and function. 7th ed. Elsevier Publishers; 2017. pp. 192–193.
  31. Pitts NB, Longbottom C, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of an Optimised AC Impedance Device to Aid Caries Detection and Monitoring. Caries Res 2008;42:185–238. DOI: 10.1159/000128562.
  32. Shafer WG, Hine MK, et al. Text book of oral pathology. 6th ed. Elsevier Publishers; 2009. p. 436.
  33. Zhu W, Zeng N, et al. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, associated confidence interval and ROC analysis with practical SAS® implementations. NESUG; 2010.
  34. Jablonski-Momeni A, Ricketts DN, et al. Occlusal caries: Evaluation of direct microscopy versus digital imaging used for two histological classification systems. J Dent 2009;37:204–211. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.11.014.
  35. Malone WF, Bell C, et al. Physicochemical characteristics of active and arrested carious lesions of dentin. J Dent Res 1966;45:16–26. DOI: 10.1177/00220345660450010901.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.