Scholarlink

<p><b>Objectives</b>: This study evaluated whether reflection intensity, roughness and tactile sensation differs between caries-inactive , caries-active and sound enamel surfaces.</p><p><b>Methods</b>: Pooled permanent teeth were assessed using surface texture and color. Teeth with caries-inactive (Ci, n = 55), caries-active (Ca, n = 59) and sound (S, n = 13) vestibular or proximal surfaces were selected. Vertical reflection intensity (VRI) and roughness parameters, including mean linear (Ra), area-related (Sa) and volume-related (Vmc) values for Ci, Ca and S were assessed using a multisensor microscope (MicroProf®100, FormFactor, Livermore, CA, USA) with a conventional or an experimental handheld chromatic–confocal optic and a 3D-laser scanning microscope (VK-X110, Keyence, Osaka, Japan). VRI and roughness values for caries-active surfaces were obtained from a previous study, while blinded tactile assessment for these surfaces was repeated. Two experienced examiners evaluated the tactile sensation using two dental explorers (405/CP11 and S23H, both Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL, USA) in 20 samples.</p><p><b>Results</b>: For all roughness parameters significant differences between caries surfaces and adjacent sound surfaces on the same teeth could be observed (p ≤ 0.029). For VRI significant differences were only observed for caries-active surfaces (p &lt; 0.001). Across Ci, Ca and S significant differences could be observed for all roughness parameters (p ≤ 0.012) and VRI (p &lt; 0.001), except for VRI between Ci and S (p ≥ 0.390). No significant difference in VRI was observed between the two optics (p &gt; 0.05). The positive predictive value (PPV) differed between examiner 1 (using explorer S23H: Ci:30%; Ca:83%; S:97%, explorer 405CP11: Ci:27%; Ca:74%; S:91%) and examiner 2 (explorer S23H: Ci:20%; Ca:72%; S:84%, explorer 405CP11: Ci:23%; Ca:68%; S:85%).</p><p><b>Conclusion</b>: Optical measurement and tactile methods revealed significant differences between active, inactive and sound enamel surfaces. However, the diagnostic accuracy varied between explorers and examiners.</p><p><b>Clinical significance</b>: Active, inactive and sound enamel surfaces showed significant differences in roughness and reflection intensity. While both optical methods are not yet applicable intraorally, tactile assessment showed strong variabilities between examiners and dependence on the type of dental explorer used, especially when simulating nonvisible areas.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Vergleich von taktiler Wahrnehmung und optischer Analyse von Schmelzläsionen

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月12日

查看全文
  • Richard J. Wierichs,
  • Thierry T. Werren,
  • Lutz Jaruszewski,
  • Hendrik Meyer-Lueckel

摘要

Objectives: This study evaluated whether reflection intensity, roughness and tactile sensation differs between caries-inactive , caries-active and sound enamel surfaces.

Methods: Pooled permanent teeth were assessed using surface texture and color. Teeth with caries-inactive (Ci, n = 55), caries-active (Ca, n = 59) and sound (S, n = 13) vestibular or proximal surfaces were selected. Vertical reflection intensity (VRI) and roughness parameters, including mean linear (Ra), area-related (Sa) and volume-related (Vmc) values for Ci, Ca and S were assessed using a multisensor microscope (MicroProf®100, FormFactor, Livermore, CA, USA) with a conventional or an experimental handheld chromatic–confocal optic and a 3D-laser scanning microscope (VK-X110, Keyence, Osaka, Japan). VRI and roughness values for caries-active surfaces were obtained from a previous study, while blinded tactile assessment for these surfaces was repeated. Two experienced examiners evaluated the tactile sensation using two dental explorers (405/CP11 and S23H, both Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL, USA) in 20 samples.

Results: For all roughness parameters significant differences between caries surfaces and adjacent sound surfaces on the same teeth could be observed (p ≤ 0.029). For VRI significant differences were only observed for caries-active surfaces (p < 0.001). Across Ci, Ca and S significant differences could be observed for all roughness parameters (p ≤ 0.012) and VRI (p < 0.001), except for VRI between Ci and S (p ≥ 0.390). No significant difference in VRI was observed between the two optics (p > 0.05). The positive predictive value (PPV) differed between examiner 1 (using explorer S23H: Ci:30%; Ca:83%; S:97%, explorer 405CP11: Ci:27%; Ca:74%; S:91%) and examiner 2 (explorer S23H: Ci:20%; Ca:72%; S:84%, explorer 405CP11: Ci:23%; Ca:68%; S:85%).

Conclusion: Optical measurement and tactile methods revealed significant differences between active, inactive and sound enamel surfaces. However, the diagnostic accuracy varied between explorers and examiners.

Clinical significance: Active, inactive and sound enamel surfaces showed significant differences in roughness and reflection intensity. While both optical methods are not yet applicable intraorally, tactile assessment showed strong variabilities between examiners and dependence on the type of dental explorer used, especially when simulating nonvisible areas.