ArticleBDJ open2025
Clinical validity of fluorescence-based devices versus visual-tactile method in detection of secondary caries around resin composite restorations: diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in BDJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04426604 (Validity of Fluorescence-Based Devices Versus Visual-Tactile Method in Detection of Secondary Caries Around Resin Composite Restorations), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Validity of Fluorescence-Based Devices Versus Visual-Tactile Method in Detection of Secondary Caries Around Resin Composite Restorations: Invivo Diagnostic Accuracy Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the validity of light-induced and laser-induced fluorescence devices compared to the visual-tactile method for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 20 participants with 30 resin-composite restored teeth. Restorations' margins were examined using three diagnostic methods: the visual-tactile method (FDI criteria), the light-induced fluorescence camera (VistaCam iX), and the laser-induced fluorescence device (DIAGNOdent pen), and the reference was visual inspection after removal of defective restorations. The validity of each method was evaluated. Inter-examiner reliability was calculated using Cohen's kappa statistics. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05.
resultsDIAGNOdent pen showed the highest sensitivity (100%) followed by VistaCam (98.82%) and the visual-tactile method (98.82%) at the enamel threshold. DIAGNOdent pen and VistaCam had lower specificity values than the visual-tactile method (81.69%, 76.06%, and 88.73% respectively). At the dentin threshold, DIAGNOdent pen yielded the highest sensitivity (89.36%), whereas VistaCam had the lowest (8.51%). The sensitivity of the visual-tactile method was low (57.45%) whereas all diagnostic methods had high specificity. There was perfect agreement in inter-examiner reliability for all assessment methods (Kappa 0.858-0.992).
conclusionsBoth fluorescence-based devices and the visual-tactile method are reliable for detecting secondary caries around resin composite restorations. DIAGNOdent pen is accurate in enamel and dentin, while VistaCam and the visual-tactile method can detect secondary caries in enamel only. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Fluorescence-based devices could be used as a valuable aid to supplement or as a second opinion after the visual-tactile method.
trial registrationThe study was listed on www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov with registration number (NCT04426604) on 11/06/2020.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.