Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the diagnostic predictive values of a Fluorescence-aided Identification Technique (FIT) with those of the conventional diagnostic method regarding the identification of resin composite restorations.
Materials and methods: Twenty examiners, 10 students, and 10 dentists were asked to identify composite restorations in a full-mouth model using both the FIT (405-nm light source) and the conventional method in combination with a common diagnostic light source. Each dental examination was repeated three times to calculate inter-/intra-operator agreement, repeatability, and reproducibility using kappa statistics. Predictive values were calculated using a filling prevalence of 42 % and the sensitivity and specificity of each method. Pearson's test and the 99 % confidence interval (CI) were used for comparison.
Results: The sensitivity (97 %, CI 94-99 %) and specificity (100 %, CI 98-100 %) of the FIT were significantly higher than those of the conventional method (27 %, CI 21-31 %, and 65 %, CI 58-72 %, respectively). Consequently, the positive (100 %) and negative (98 %) predictive values of the FIT were significantly higher than those of the conventional method (35 and 55 %, respectively). As expressed by the kappa statistics, the repeatability (0.96) and reproducibility (0.95) of the FIT were significantly better than those of the conventional method (0.49, CI 0.42-0.56, and 0.34, CI 0.26-0.43, respectively).
Conclusion: Compared to the conventional technique, the FIT was significantly more reliable as shown by higher sensitivity, specificity, repeatability, and reproducibility values.
Clinical relevance: The FIT should be considered as a reliable and practicable alternative in contrast to the conventional method, which was hardly sufficient as a diagnostic procedure.
Keywords: Composite resin; Diagnosis; Filling; Fluorescence; Restoration.