RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Early detection of secondary caries near dental restorations is essential to prevent further complications. This systematic review seeks to evaluate the sensitivity of fluorescence and near-infrared (NIR) imaging techniques for detecting secondary caries and to provide insight into their clinical utility. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy was used to select studies from seven databases, emphasizing diagnostic accuracy studies of secondary caries detection using fluorescence and NIR imaging techniques. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) instrument assessed bias risk and practicality. Two evaluators performed data extraction, screening, and quality assessment independently. RESULTS: From 3110 initial recordings, nine studies were selected for full-text analysis. Wide variations in sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) values were reported across the studies. These studies exhibited variable SE and SP values, and the findings highlighted the importance of method selection based on clinical context. This systematic review underlines the potential for fluorescence and NIR imaging to detect secondary caries. However, results from different studies vary, indicating the need to consider additional variables such as restoration materials. CONCLUSIONS: Although these technologies exhibit potential for detecting caries, our research underscores the complex procedure of identifying secondary caries lesions. It is a continuous necessity for progress in dental diagnostics to promptly identify secondary caries lesions, particularly those in proximity to tooth-colored ones.
RESUMO
(1) Background: New intraoral (IOS) and laboratory scanners appear in the market and their trueness and precision have not been compared. (2) Methods: Seven IOS and two laboratory scanners were used to scan a mandibular edentulous model with four parallel internal hexagon implant analogues and PEEK scan bodies. Digital models in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) were created. The master model with the scan bodies was scanned (×10) with a computerized numerical control 3D Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). The short (distances of adjacent scan posts) and long distances (distances of the scan posts with non-adjacent sites in the arch) among the centroids of the four analogues were calculated using CMM special software. Trueness (comparisons with the master model) and precision (intragroup comparisons) were statistically compared with ANOVA, chi-square and Tukey tests. (3) Results: Laboratory scanners had the best trueness and precision compared to all IOSs for long distances. Only iTero (Align Technologies Inc., Milpitas, CA, USA) had comparable trueness with one laboratory scanner in short and long distances. For short distances, CS3600 (Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY, USA), Omnicam, Primescan (Sirona Dental Sys-tems GmbH, Bens-heim, Germany) and TRIOS 4 (3Shape A/S, Copen-hagen, Denmark) had similar trueness to one laboratory scanner. From those, only Omnicam and Primescan had similar precision as the same laboratory scanner. Most IOSs seem to work better for smaller distances and are less precise in cross-arch distances. (4) Conclusions: The laboratory scanners showed significantly higher trueness and precision than all IOSs tested for the long-distance group; for the short distance, some IOSs were not different in trueness and precision than the laboratory scanners.
