Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to compare the accuracy of the conventional illumination method (CONV) and the fluorescence-aided identification technique (FIT) for distinguishing between composite restorations and intact teeth using different fluorescence-inducing devices commonly used for FIT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six groups of six dentists equipped with one of six different FIT systems each independently attempted to identify composite restorations and intact teeth on a full-mouth model with 22 composite restorations using CONV and, 1 h later, FIT. The entire procedure was repeated 1 week later. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, including 95% confidence intervals (CI), were calculated for CONV and FIT overall and for each device. The influence of examiner age, method, and device on each parameter was assessed by multivariate analysis of variance. RESULTS: The sensitivity (84%, CI 81-86%), specificity (94%, CI 93-96%), PPV (92%, CI 90-94%), and NPV (90%, CI 88-91%) of FIT was significantly higher than that of CONV (47%, CI 44-50%; 82%, CI 79-84%; 66%, CI 62-69%, and 69%, CI 68-71%, respectively; p<0.001). The differences between CONV and FIT were significant for all parameters and FIT systems except VistaCam, which achieved no significant difference in specificity. Examiners younger than 40 years attained significantly higher sensitivity and negative predictive values than older examiners. CONCLUSIONS: FIT is more reliable for detecting composite restorations than the conventional illumination method. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: FIT can be considered an additional or alternative tool for improving the detection of composite restorations.