الفهرس 
Title : Evaluation Of Reliability Of The Near-Infrared Imaging System In Comparison With Digital Radiographic Findings And ICDAS-II In Detection Of Approximal CariousLesions: Diagnostic Accuracy Study
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 149 |  |  |
| | | from | 149 | | |
Abstract
Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate the reliability of the near-infrared imaging system
VistaCam iX Proxi in comparison with digital radiographic findings and ICDAS-II in detection of
proximal carious lesions.
Methodology: Proximal surfaces of 102 molar and premolar teeth from 36 adult participants who
fulfilled the eligibility criteria were examined by two observers using three diagnostic methods.
Teeth were firstly assessed visually according to the criteria of the International Caries Detection
and Assessment System (ICDAS-II) then examined by bitewing digital radiograph (BW) and near
infrared light transillumination (NIRT) camera. Inter observer agreement and intra observer
agreement were measured for ICDAS-II,BW and NIRT using Kappa test. Correlation between
methods was calculated using Wilcoxon signed-rank test for comparison between the three
modalities. The Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, diagnostic accuracy, likelihood ratios,
Area Under the ROC curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of the (AUC) for caries
detection by VistaCam® proxi were evalutaed.
Results: The results of inter-observer agreement showed an excellent agreement in the different
groups .There was a statistically significant difference in the score distribution between ICDASII and
VistaCam modalities (P-value <0.05) While there was no statistically significant difference in the
score distribution between bitewing radiography and VistaCam modalities (P-value >0.05). ROC
curve analysis revealed that VistaCam when compared with ICDASII had sensitivity (99.0%),
specificity (50.0 %), diagnostic accuracy (98.0%) and Area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.745
with 95% Confidence Interval (0.649 – 0.826). In enamel, VistaCam showed sensitivity (97.9%) and
specificity (50.0%) while in dentin sensitivity was (84.3%), specificity (100.0%)