الفهرس 
Reliability of secondary caries detection around composite restoration using light induced fluorescence in comparison to visual tactile method
CONTENTSOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 111 |  |  |
| | | from | 111 | | |
Abstract
Aim of the study : The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and reproducibility of secondary caries diagnosis using light induced fluorescence device 2Soprolife3 in comparison to conventional visual-tactile method according to modified USPHS restoration assessment Methodology : A total of 29 volunteer patients were assigned in this study. Each patient had at least one defected posterior occlusal resin composite restoration. The restoration was evaluated by two diagnostic methods; the visual tactile examination and assessment using the modified USPHS criteria and the light fluorescence device SOPROLIFE (SOPRO, ACTEON Group, La Ciotat, France). This method involves an intraoral LED light-emitting diode camera offering the ability to detect and locate differences in density, structures, and/or chemical composition of hard tooth tissues.The blue LED, selected by the device, emits at a 450 nm-wavelength which excites a light fluorescence signal re-transmitted by dentine. The spectrum of the fluorescence signal is green when the dentine is healthy and dark red when the dentine is infected (according to the SOPROLIFE manufacturer{u2019}s instructions). According to modified United States Public Health Service USPHS/ Ryge criteria Direct Clinical Evaluation of Restoration , which states the use of an eye without any magnification device, only a dental mirror and an explorer, in a proper isolated field following the directions to assess secondary caries existence. Prior to the initiation of the study, calibration sessions were arranged for the 3 operators using the two methods separately in the examination site