This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of VistaCam iX intraoral camera system using infrared light and bitewing radiography for detection of proximal caries in permanent teeth. This in vitro study was performed on 108 teeth. The proximal surfaces of the teeth were examined for caries using ICDAS II criteria, bitewing radiography, and the Proxi head of VistaCam iX. The teeth were then sectioned and histologically analyzed (gold standard). Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25 via the correlation test at P < 0.05 level of significance. The overall and segmental sensitivity and specificity values were calculated for (1) the contact area and higher regions, (2) below the contact area to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), and (3) below the CEJ. Radiography had the highest specificity. VistaCam had the highest overall and segmental sensitivity for enamel caries. Radiography had the highest segmental sensitivity for dentin. In region 1, VistaCam had the highest sensitivity and lowest specificity, and radiography and ICDAS II had the highest specificity and lowest sensitivity. In region 2, radiography showed the highest sensitivity and specificity. VistaCam had the lowest sensitivity and ICDAS II had the lowest specificity in this region. In region 3, VistaCam did not detect any caries and radiography had a better performance than ICDAS II. The specificity value was equal for both methods. VistaCam had the highest diagnostic efficacy among the three methods for caries in region 1; however, bitewing radiography had a superior efficacy in regions 2 and 3.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
The authors gratefully acknowledge dental research center of Tehran University of medical sciences.
Role of funding source
This study was supported a grant from the research center, school of dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences (International Campus).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any study with human or animal subjects. In addition, this study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences, International Campus. (No.1396.4241).
Jablonski-Momeni A, Heinzel-Gutenbrunner M, Klein SM (2014) In vivo performance of the VistaProof fluorescence-based camera for detection of occlusal lesions. Clin Oral Investig 18(7):1757–1762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hintze H, Wenzel A, Danielsen B, Nyvad B (1998) Reliability of visual examination, fibreoptic transillumination, and bite-wing radiography, and reproducibility of direct visual examination following tooth separation for the identification of cavitated carious lesions in contacting approximal surfaces. Caries Res 32(3):204–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kogen SL, Stephens RG, Reid JA, Donner A (1987) Can radiographic criteria be used to distinguish between cavitated and noncavitated approximal enamel caries? Dentomaxillofac Radiol 16(1):33–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Bille J, Thylstrup A (1982) Radiographic diagnosis and clinical tissue changes in relation to treatment of approximal carious lesions. Caries Res 16(1):1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pitts NB (1996) The use of bitewing radiographs in the management of dental caries: scientific and practical considerations. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 25(1):5–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Akpata ES, Farid MR, al-Saif K, Roberts EA (1996) Cavitation at radiolucent areas on proximal surfaces of posterior teeth. Caries Res 30(5):313–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hibst R, Paulus R, Lussi A (2001) Detection of occlusal caries by laser fluorescence: basic and clinical investigations. Med Laser Appl 16(3):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrigues JA, Hug I, Neuhaus KW, Lussi A (2011) Light-emitting diode and laser fluorescence-based devices in detecting occlusal caries. J Biomed Opt 16(10):16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoms M (2006) Detection of intaoral lesions using a fluorescence camera. Proc SPIE Lasers Dent XII 6137:1–7Google Scholar
Jablonski-Momeni A, Liebegall F, Stoll R, Heinzel-Gutenbrunner M, Pieper K (2013) Performance of a new fluorescence camera for detection of occlusal caries in vitro. Lasers Med Sci 28(1):101–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Seremidi K, Lagouvardos P, Kavvadia K (2012) Comparative in vitro validation of VistaProof and DIAGNOdent pen for occlusal caries detection in permanent teeth. Oper Dent 37(3):234–245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Jablonski-Momeni A, Jablonski B, Lippe N (2017) Clinical performance of the nearinfrared imaging system VistaCam iX Proxi for detection of approximal enamel lesions. BDJ Open 3:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamburoğlu K, Kolsuz E, Murat S, Yüksel S, Özen T (2012) Proximal caries detection accuracy using intraoral bitewing radiography, extraoral bitewing radiography and panoramic radiography. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41(6):450–459CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Ko HY, Kang SM, Kim HE, Kwon HK, Kim BI (2015) Validation of quantitative lightinduced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) for the detection of approximal caries in vitro. J Dent 43(5):568–575CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Akbari M, Ahrari F, Hoseini-Zarch H, Movagharipour F (2013) Assessing the performance of laser fluorescence technique in detecting proximal caries cavities. J Mash Dent Sch 37(3):185–200Google Scholar
Bozdemir E, Aktan AM, Ozsevik A, Kararslan ES, Ciftci ME, Cebe MA (2016) Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection. J Dent Sci 11(3):293–298CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Karlsson L (2010) Caries detection methods based on changes in optical properties between healthy and carious tissue. Int J Dent 2010:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tassery H, Levallois B, Terrer E, Manton DJ, Otsuki M, Koubi S et al (2013) Use of new minimum intervention dentistry technologies in caries management. Aust Dent J 58(Suppl 1):40–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar