European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 91–93 | Cite as

Comparison of validation methods for the diagnosis of occlusal caries in primary molars

  • M. D. M. Oliveira
  • T. K. Tedesco
  • T. L. Lenzi
  • A. C. Guedes Pinto
  • R. O. RochaEmail author
Scientific Article


AIM: To evaluate the reproducibility of 7 validation methods used for caries diagnosis in primary teeth. METHODS: Seventy-two occlusal sites were selected on 40 primary molars. The sites were evaluated independently by 3 experienced examiners using validation methods that involved direct assessment, i.e. by using a (1) magnifying glass (8) and (2) stereomicroscope (35), or indirect assessment i.e. by using (3) photographs, (4) slide projections of photographs, (5) stereomicroscope (35) photographs, (6) stereomicroscope (35) slide projections, and (7) projections of polarised light microscope slides. Cohen’s kappa coefficients were calculated and subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis test at a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: The mean inter-examiner kappa values for the validation methods were 0.31–0.51. There were statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between methods 1 and 3, 1 and 4, 2 and 4, 4 and 5, 4 and 6, and 4 and 7. Moderate agreement was observed for all methods except methods 1 and 4, for which the agreement was fair. CONCLUSIONS: The inter-examiner agreement for all validation methods for caries diagnosis was moderate, except for the method based on indirect assessment by slide projection, which showed low agreement.

Key words

Primary molar teeth diagnosis occlusal caries 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Apostolopoulou D, Lagouvardos P, Kavvadia K, Papagiannoulis L. Histological validation of a laser fluorescence device for a occlusal caries detection in primary molars. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009;10:11–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Costa AM, Bezerra AC, Fuks AB. Assessment of the accuracy of visual examination, bite-wing radiographs and DIAGNOdent on the diagnosis of occlusal caries. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2007;8:118–122.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Costa AM, Paula LM, Bezerra AC. Use of Diagnodent for diagnosis of non-cavitated occlusal dentin caries. J Appl Oral Sci 2008;16:18–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Deery C, Ferrier S, Longbottom C, Nugent ZJ, Pitts, NB. The effect of diagnostic criteria and validation system on the interpretation of caries diagnostic results. Caries Res 2000;34:322–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekstrand KR, Ricketts DN, Kidd EA. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferro R, Besostri A, Olivieri A. Caries prevalence and tooth surface distribution in a group of 5-year-old Italian children. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009;10:33–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goel A, Chawla HS, Gauba K, Goyal A. 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 Prevent Dent 2009;27:227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hintze H, Wenzel A, Larsen MJ. Stereomicroscopy, film radiography, microradiography and naked-eye inspection of tooth sections as validation for occlusal caries diagnosis. Caries Res 1995;29:359–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hintze H, Wenzel A. Influence of the validation method on diagnostic accuracy for caries. A comparison of six digital and two conventional radiographic systems. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002;31:44–49.Google Scholar
  10. Jablonski-Momeni A, Ricketts DN, Stachniss V, et al. Occlusal caries: Evaluation of direct microscopy versus digital imaging used for two histological classification systems. J Dent 2009;37:204–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of oberver agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mejàre I, Källestal C, Stenlund H, Johansson H. Caries development from 11 to 22 years of age: a prospective radiographic study. Prevalence and distribution. Caries Res 1998;32:10–6.Google Scholar
  13. Pereira AC, Eggertsson H, Martinez-Mier EA et al. Validity of caries detection on occlusal surfaces and treatment decisions based on results from multiple caries-detection methods. Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117:51–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ricketts DN, Watson TF, Liepins PJ, Kidd EA. A comparison of two histological validating techniques for occlusal caries. J Dent 1998;26:89–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Shi XQ, Welander U, Angmar-Mansson B. Occlusal caries detection with KaVo DIAGNOdent and radiography: an in vitro comparison. Caries Res 2000;34:151–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Valera FB, Pessan JP, Valera RC, Mondelli J, Percinoto C. Comparison of visual inspection, radiographic examination, laser fluorescence and their combinations on treatment decisions for occlusal surfaces. Am J Dent 2008;21:25–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wenzel A, Verdonschot EH, Truin GJ, König KG. Impact of the validator and the validation method on the outcome of occlusal caries diagnosis. Caries Res 1994;28:373–377.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. D. M. Oliveira
    • 1
  • T. K. Tedesco
    • 1
  • T. L. Lenzi
    • 1
  • A. C. Guedes Pinto
    • 2
  • R. O. Rocha
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Dept. of StomatologyFederal University of Santa MariaSanta MariaBrazil
  2. 2.Dept. of Orthodontics and Paediatric DentistryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations