Detection of Dental Caries and Cracks with Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence in Comparison to Radiographic and Visual Examination: A Retrospective Case Study.

The aim of this study was to present an optimal diagnostic protocol by comparing and analyzing a conventional examination and the quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) technique. Selected were 297 teeth of 153 patients to take QLF images and bitewing radiographs. Occlusal dental caries, proximal dental caries and cracks were evaluated and scored using QLF, X-ray and/or visual criteria. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic analysis were calculated. Two fluorescence parameters (|ΔFmax| and ΔRmax) were utilized to evaluate the fluorescence pattern according to the severity of lesions based on QLF or X-ray criteria. QLF showed higher scores for detecting occlusal dental caries and cracks than the conventional method. ΔRmax increased more clearly than ΔFmax did with occlusal dental caries. The |ΔFmax| values of occlusal dental caries, proximal dental caries and cracks showed good AUC levels (0.84, 0.81 and 0.83, respectively). The ΔRmax of occlusal dental caries showed the highest AUC (0.91) and the ΔRmax of proximal dental caries showed a fail level (0.59) compared to bitewing radiographs. The QLF image could visualize and estimate the degree of occlusal dental caries or cracks. Consequently, the QLF technique may be an adjunct tool to conventional methods for the detection of occlusal caries and peripheral cracks.

A narrative review of cracks in teeth: Aetiology, microstructure and diagnostic challenges.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the available evidence of crack formation in teeth and to discuss the limitations of the current clinical diagnostic modalities for crack detection in teeth. BACKGROUND: Cracks are a common clinical finding in teeth and yet clinicians still struggle to identify the full extent and orientation of cracks for their appropriate timely management. The biomechanics of crack development can be due to multiple factors and can differ from an unrestored tooth to a restored or endodontically treated tooth. DATA & SOURCES: This narrative review has been designed following the guidelines published by Green et al. 2006 [1] Published literature in the English language that addresses the objectives of this review up to July 2022 was sourced from online databases and reference lists. The relevance of the papers was assessed and discussed by two reviewers. A total of 101 publications were included in this narrative review. CONCLUSIONS: The initiation and development of cracks in teeth are likely linked to an interplay between the masticatory forces and fracture resistance of the remaining tooth structure. From the identified literature, the quality and quantity of remaining tooth structure in a restored or endodontically-treated tooth affects the biomechanics of crack development compared to an unrestored tooth. The extent, orientation, and size of the cracks do affect a clinician's ability to detect cracks in teeth. There is still a need to develop reliable diagnostic tools that will accurately identify cracks in teeth beneath restorations to enable effective monitoring of their propagation and provide appropriate interventions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The development and propagation of cracks in an unrestored tooth differ greatly from a restored and endodontically treated tooth; mainly linked to the quantity and quality of the remaining tooth structure and the forces acting on them. Identifying the extent of cracks in teeth remains challenging for early clinical intervention.