{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.042185338865836794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016597510373443983, 'mean_word_length': 4.882113821138211, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Comparison of Different Methods for Fissure Caries Detection

Summary The aim of the study is to compare the diagnostic capabilities of three different diagnostic methods: Quantitative Laser Fluorescence (QLF) − DIAGNOdent Classic (DD), Light-Induced Fluorescence (LIF) − SoproLife daylight and blue fluorescence, and their relevance to ICDAS II system in detection of fissure caries lesions in permanent molars. Permanent molars (n = 45) are divided in two groups: 1) third molars, n = 35; 2) first and second molars, n = 10. They are examined by 2 examiners with and without magnification x5 using ICDAS II, SoproLife “day light” and “blue light” (405nm), LIF, DIAGNOdent Classic − emitting laser light on 655nm, QLF. The results are proven with histological bucco-lingual or mesio-distal sections through the body of the lesion with diamond blade rinsed with water. Photos of all occlusal surfaces of the molars are taken before and after the sections. The lowest overdiagnosis rate is found with SoproLife camera. When visual examination is applied overdiagnoses are fewer than with DD. DD is not capable to differentiate white and brown spots from a caries lesion. Soprolife is not capable to differentiate brown spots from a caries lesion. The most accurate method in this in vitro study for diagnosis of fissure caries is LIF (SoproLife) − 75.6% of the teeth are correctly diagnosed, followed by ICDAS (57.8%) and QLF (DIAGNOdent) (40%).