Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKoç Vural, Uzay
dc.contributor.authorKütük, Zeynep Bilge
dc.contributor.authorErgin, Esra
dc.contributor.authorYalçın Çakır, Filiz
dc.contributor.authorGürgan, Sevil
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-16T07:17:56Z
dc.date.available2019-12-16T07:17:56Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn2234-7658
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.1.48
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299755/
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11655/19226
dc.description.abstractObjectives The aim of this study was to investigate the ability of the fluorescence-aided caries excavation (FACE) device to detect residual caries by comparing conventional methods in vivo. Materials and Methods A total of 301 females and 202 males with carious teeth participated in this study. The cavity preparations were done by grade 4 (Group 1, 154 teeth), grade 5 (Group 2, 176 teeth), and postgraduate (Group 3, 173 teeth) students. After caries excavation using a handpiece and hand instruments, the presence of residual caries was evaluated by 2 investigators who were previously calibrated for visual-tactile assessment with and without magnifying glasses and trained in the use of a FACE device. The tooth number, cavity type, and presence or absence of residual caries were recorded. The data were analyzed using the Chi-square test, the Fisher's Exact test, or the McNemar test as appropriate. Kappa statistics was used for calibration. In all tests, the level of significance was set at p = 0.05. Results Almost half of the cavities prepared were Class II (Class I, 20.9%; Class II, 48.9%; Class III, 20.1%; Class IV, 3.4%; Class V, 6.8%). Higher numbers of cavities left with caries were observed in Groups 1 and 2 than in Group 3 for all examination methods. Significant differences were found between visual inspection with or without magnifying glasses and inspection with a FACE device for all groups (p < 0.001). More residual caries were detected through inspection with a FACE device (46.5%) than through either visual inspection (31.8%) or inspection with a magnifying glass (37.6%). Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the FACE device may be an effective method for the detection of residual caries.
dc.relation.isversionof10.5395/rde.2017.42.1.48
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.titleComparison Of Two Different Methods Of Detecting Residual Caries
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.relation.journalRestorative Dentistry & Endodontics
dc.contributor.departmentRestoratif Diş Tedavisi
dc.identifier.volume42
dc.identifier.issue1
dc.identifier.startpage48
dc.identifier.endpage53
dc.description.indexPubMed


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record