Abstract
Objective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of operating microscope compared with unaided visual examination, conventional and digital intraoral radiography for proximal caries detection. Materials and Methods. The study was based on 48 extracted human posterior permanent teeth. The teeth were examined with unaided visual examination, operating microscope, conventional bitewing and digital intraoral radiographs. Then, true caries depth was determined by histological examination. The extent of the carious lesions was assessed by three examiners independently. One way variance of analysis (ANOVA) and Scheffe test were performed for comparison of observers, and the diagnostic accuracies of all systems were assessed from the area under the ROC curve (A z). Results. Statistically significant difference was found between observers (P < .01). There was a statistically significant difference between operating microscope-film radiography, operating microscope-RVG, unaided visual examination-film radiography, and unaided visual examination-RVG according to pairwise comparison (P < .05). Conclusion. The efficiency of operating microscope was found statistically equal with unaided visual examination and lower than radiographic systems for proximal caries detection.
Highlights
A variety of test methods are discussed for the diagnosis of proximal tooth surfaces
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of operating microscope compared with unaided visual examination, conventional and digital intraoral radiography
The models were fixed in a phantom head which was adjusted to a dental unit during the sessions of unaided visual examination and operating microscope assessment
Summary
A variety of test methods are discussed for the diagnosis of proximal tooth surfaces. Adjuncts such as bitewing radiography and fiber-optic transillumination provide an improvement to unaided vision. Unaided visual diagnosis had detected fewer than 50% of caries lesions on occlusal surfaces and even fewer on proximal surfaces [1]. It is not possible to detect only with unaided visual examination in interproximal caries lesions; radiographs help for proximal caries diagnosis and detection of their lesion depth [2, 3]. The combination of visual inspection and bitewing radiographic images is accepted as a standard procedure in proximal caries diagnosis [4]. Proximal radiolucencies on bitewing radiographs are not always indicative of clinical cavitation. The deeper the radiolucency penetrates enamel and dentine, the higher the probability of cavitation [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
