Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 187–195 | Cite as

Performance of a recent light fluorescence device for detection of occlusal carious lesions in children and adolescents

  • M. Muller-BollaEmail author
  • C. Joseph
  • M. Pisapia
  • P. Tramini
  • A. M. Velly
  • H. Tassery
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Aim

To assess the validity and reliability of a recent light fluorescence device, Soprolife® (Sopro-Acteon group) in detecting occlusal caries in children and adolescents and to compare its diagnostic performance with DIAGNOPen® (Kavo).

Methods

A multi-centre study was carried out to validate Soprolife® in 103 children, aged from 5–15 years, on 310 primary and 433 permanent posterior teeth. The sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP) and the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were evaluated using visual International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) and radiographic examinations as the gold standards. The performance of the Soprolife® was compared with that of the DIAGNOPen® on the same teeth. The reproducibility was assessed using weighted Kappa coefficient.

Results

When all carious lesions using ICDAS 1–6 were considered, SE, SP and AUC for the Soprolife® were 88.50, 70.73 and 0.84 respectively. The validity was significantly higher for primary teeth (AUC = 0.90) than for permanent teeth (0.80); the validity of the Soprolife® (0.84) was significantly higher than that of DIAGNOPen® (0.80). The inter- and intra-examiner kappa coefficients were 0.87 and 0.85 respectively.

Conclusion

The Soprolife® was a valid instrument providing reproducible results, particularly for primary teeth.

Keywords

Caries diagnosis Light fluorescence device Children Adolescents 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All of the authors declare that they had no conflict of interest in the conduct of this research.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All procedures performed in study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee CPP-sud-Méditerranée1 and the ANSM (Agence Nationale de Sécurité des Médicaments et des Produits de Santé).

Informed consent

An informed consent form was validated by ethics committee CPP-sud-Méditerranée1. Informed consent was obtained from all young participants (minor) included in the study and their parents.

No animals were involved in this study.

References

  1. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Ad Hoc Committee on Pedodontic Radiology. Guideline on prescribing dental radiographs for infants, children, adolescents, and persons with special health care needs. Pediatr Dent. 2012;34:189–91.Google Scholar
  2. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Guideline on periodicity of examination, preventive dental services, anticipatory guidance/counseling, and oral treatment for infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dent. 2013a;35:E148–56.Google Scholar
  3. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Guideline on caries-risk assessment and management for infants, children, and adolescents. Pediatr Dent. 2013b;35:E157–64.Google Scholar
  4. American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (AAPD). Policy on the use of lasers for pediatric dental patients. 2013c; http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/P_LasersUse.pdf (22 Dec 2015).
  5. College of Teachers in Paediatric Dentistry (CEOP). Paediatric Dentistry Practice Sheets by M. Muller-Bolla. 1st Ed, Paris: Continuing Education for Dentists, Health Initiatives; 2014 (In French).Google Scholar
  6. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Domejean S, Rongier J, Muller-Bolla M. Detection of occlusal carious lesion using the Soprolife® camera: a systematic review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(9):774–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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;31:224–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Frencken JE, Peters MC, Manton DJ, et al. Minimal intervention dentistry for managing dental caries—a review: report of a FDI task group. Int Dent J. 2012;62:223–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Gimenez T, Braga MM, Raggio DP, et al. Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e60421.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Gimenez T, Piovesan C, Braga MM, et al. Visual inspection for caries detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2015;94(7):895–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gomez J, Tellez M, Pretty IA, Ellwood RP, Ismail AI. Non-cavitated carious lesions detection methods: a systematic review. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2013a;41:55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gomez J, Zakian C, Salsone S, et al. In vitro performance of different methods in detecting occlusal caries lesions. J Dent. 2013b;41(2):180–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gomez J. Detection and diagnosis of the early caries lesion. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15(suppl 1):S3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M, et al. The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS): an integrated system for measuring dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35:170–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lussi A, Francescut P. Performance of conventional and new methods for the detection of occlusal caries in deciduous teeth. Caries Res. 2003;37:2–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Pretty IA, Ekstrand KR. Detection and monitoring od early caries lesions: a review. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2016;17:13–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rechmann P, Charland D, Rechmann BMT, Featherstone JDB. Performance of laser fluorescence devices and visual examination for the detection of occlusal caries in permanent molars. J Biomed Opt. 2012;17:036006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Schwendicke F, Tzschoppe M, Paris S. Radiographic caries detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(8):924–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science. 1988;240:1285–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Theocharopoulou A, Lagerweij MD, van Strijp AJ. Use of the ICDAS system and two fluorescence-based intraoral devices for examination of occlusal surfaces. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2015;16:51–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Twetman S, Axelsson S, Dahlén G, et al. Adjunct methods for caries detection: a systematic review of literature. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71:388–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Zeitouny M, Feghali M, Nasr A, et al. SOPROLIFE system: an accurate diagnostic enhancer. Sci World J. 2014;2014:924741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paediatric Dentistry Department, UFR OdontologyNice Sophia Antipolis University (UCA), CHUNNiceFrance
  2. 2.Paediatric Dentistry Department, UFR OdontologyAix-Marseille-UniversityMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.Restorative Department Marseille, UFR OdontologyAix-Marseille-UniversityMarseilleFrance
  4. 4.URB2i, EA 4462, Paris Descartes UniversityParisFrance
  5. 5.MICORALIS EA 7354, Nice Sophia Antipolis University (UCA)NiceFrance
  6. 6.Public Health Department, UFR OdontologyMontpellier UniversityMontpellierFrance
  7. 7.EA 4203 LaboratoryMontpellier UniversityMontpellierFrance
  8. 8.McGill University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of DentistryJewish General HospitalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations