{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03236514522821577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012448132780082987, 'mean_word_length': 4.940886699507389, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, '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}}
Clinical Effectiveness of Laser Fluorescence, Visual Inspection and Radiography in the Detection of Occlusal Caries

The aim of this in vivo study was to compare a laser fluorescence (LF) device with Ekstrand’s visual scoring system and radiographic assessment for detection of occlusal caries. Thirty-eight adults aged 19–35 years participated in the study; a total of 57 third molars with macroscopically intact occlusal surfaces were selected. Two examiners assessed 110 sites by visual inspection (VI), bitewing radiography (BW) and LF. Teeth were then extracted and caries extent assessed by histology. The detection methods were compared by means of sensitivity, specificity, inter-examiner reproducibility (kappa statistics) and area under the ROC curve. VI and LF had similar (p > 0.05) and superior sensitivities than BW (p < 0.05). VI and BW showed similar specificities, which was superior to LF. The inter-examiner reproducibility was good for VI and BW and moderate for LF. The area under ROC curves showed that VI was better than LF. It was concluded that Ekstrand’s visual scoring system is the most valid method for caries diagnosis. LF should be considered an adjunct to caries diagnosis.