Journal of dental hygiene science (치위생과학회지)

The Korean Society of Dental Hygiene Science (한국치위생과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison between QraypenTM Imaging and the Conventional Methods of Visual Inspection and Periapical Radiography for Proximal Caries Detection in Primary Molars: An In Vivo Study

유구치 인접면 우식 병소 진단에 있어 QraypenTM과 시진 및 구내 치근단 방사선의 비교

  • An, So-Youn (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Wonkwang University Daejeon Dental Hospital) ;
  • Park, So-Young (Department of Dental Hygiene, Vision College of Jeonju) ;
  • Shim, Youn-Soo (Department of Dental Hygiene, Sun Moon University)
  • 안소연 (원광대학교 대전치과병원 소아치과) ;
  • 박소영 (전주비전대학교 치위생과) ;
  • 심연수 (선문대학교 치위생학과)
  • Received : 2016.07.15
  • Accepted : 2016.08.29
  • Published : 2016.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the newly-developed $Qraypen^{TM}$ (All In One Bio, Korea) system for the diagnosis of early proximal caries by comparing it with the conventional methods of visual inspection and periapical radiography. This study was carried out from July 2015 to April 2016 targeting 32 children aged 7~12 years who visited Y-Dental Clinic for school oral health examinations. Two investigators selected and examined a total of 153 primary molars that had not undergone restorative treatment. Comparisons were carried out between visual inspections, readings of posterior periapical radiography images, and readings of $Qraypen^{TM}$ images. This study revealed that the percentage of interproximal surfaces of primary molar teeth without caries incidence was 83.7% using $Qraypen^{TM}$ imaging and 84.9% using visual inspection and periapical radiography. The differences between the two methods were not statistically significant. Thus, $Qraypen^{TM}$ is expected to be a useful and convenient auxiliary diagnostic device that can facilitate the detection of hidden proximal caries in primary molars.

2015년 실시한 국민구강실태조사에 따르면 우리나라 만 12세 아동들의 우식경험영구치지수(DMFT index)는 1.9로 주요 OECD 국가들의 평균인 1.6에 거의 근접한 것으로 조사되었다. 본 연구의 목적은 인접면 우식증의 진단에 있어 새로 개발된 $Qraypen^{TM}$의 효능을 기존의 방법인 시진 및 구내 치근단 방사선 사진과 비교 평가하고, 임상 적용 시의 문제점을 파악하여 차후 $Qraypen^{TM}$에 필요한 개선안을 제시함과 아울러 치아우식증의 예방 및 초기 우식증 재광화 방법에 대한 기초 연구자료를 마련하고자 하였다. 학교 구강검진을 목적으로 내원한 학령기의 혼합치열을 가진 32명의 어린이들을 대상으로 구강검진 2회, 구치부 치근단 방사선 필름 판독 2회 그리고 구치부 인접면 $Qraypen^{TM}$ 이미지 판독 2회를 실시하고 비교한 결과 $Qraypen^{TM}$ 영상은 변연융선이 파괴되지 않은 유구치의 인접면 우식증의 탐지에 효과적이었다. 또한 방사선 촬영 결과와 비교해 보니 차이가 없음을 확인하였다. 그러나 인접면 우식증이 상아질까지 진행되어 병소가 성숙하여야 뚜렷한 붉은색 형광을 관찰할 수 있었기에 우식 병소의 진행 정도와 붉은색 형광 발생의 관련성을 확인하기 위해서는 향후 발치된 치아를 사용하여 조직학적 검사를 병행한 추가적인 연구가 필요할 것으로 생각된다. 본 연구 결과 $Qraypen^{TM}$은 유구치의 육안으로 보이지 않은 인접면 우식증을 탐지하는 데 도움을 줄 수 있는 유용하고 간편한 보조장비가 될 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

Keywords

References

  1. US Department of Health and Human Services: Oral Health in America: A report of the surgeon general. Rockville National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, pp.276-277, 2000.
  2. Barmes DE: Indicators for oral health and their implications for developing countries. Int Dent J 33: 60-66, 1983.
  3. Bratthall D: Estimation of global DMFT for 12-year-olds in 2004. Int Dent J 55: 370-372, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595X.2005.tb00048.x
  4. 2015 Ministry of Health & Welfare: Korean National Oral Health Survey 2015. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Seoul, pp.3-413, 2015.
  5. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB: Dental caries. Lancet 369: 51-59, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60031-2
  6. Featherstone JD: The science and practice of caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc 131: 887-899, 2000. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0307
  7. Seol JH, Oh YH, Lee NY, Lee SH: Detection of early proximal caries with laser fluorescence. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent 31: 236-246, 2004.
  8. Mejare I, Grondahl HG, Carlstedt K, Grever AC, Ottosson E: Accuracy at radiography and probing for the diagnosis of proximal caries. Scand J Dent Res 93: 178-184, 1985.
  9. Kim YH, Kang BC: The value of periapical radiograph in the diagnosis of interproximal Caries. Korean J Oral Maxillofac Radiol 30: 49-54, 2000.
  10. White SC, Atchison KA, Hewlett ER, Flack VF: Efficacy of FDA guidelines for ordering radiographs for caries detection. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 77: 531-540, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(94)90237-2
  11. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry: Guideline on prescribing dental radiographs for infants, children, adolescents, and persons with special health care needs. Pediatr Dent 34: 189-191, 2012.
  12. Manji F, Fejerskov O, Nagelkerke NJ, Baelum V: A random effects model for some epidemiological features of dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 19: 324-328, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1991.tb00180.x
  13. Ekstrand K, Qvist V, Thylstrup A: Light microscope study of the effect of probing in occlusal surfaces. Caries Res 21: 368-374, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261041
  14. Ismail AI: Clinical diagnosis of precavitated carious lesions. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 25: 13-23, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1997.tb00895.x
  15. Gonzalez-Cabezas C, Fontana M, Stookey GK: Measurement of mineral gain and loss on dental enamel and dentin using confocal microscopy. Methods Enzymol 307: 485-496, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(99)07029-9
  16. Cortes DF, Ellwood RP, Ekstrand KR: An in vitro comparison of a combined FOTI/visual examination of occlusal caries with other caries diagnostic methods and the effect of stain on their diagnostic performance. Caries Res 37: 8-16, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1159/000068230
  17. Schneiderman A, Elbaum M, Shultz T, Keem S, Greenebaum M, Driller J: Assessment of dental caries with Digital Imaging Fiber-Optic TransIllumination (DIFOTI): in vitro study. Caries Res 31: 103-110, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1159/000262384
  18. Shi XQ, Tranaeus S, Angmar-Mansson B: Comparison of QLF and DIAGNOdent for quantification of smooth surface caries. Caries Res 35: 21-26, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1159/000047426
  19. Bader JD, Shugars DA: A systematic review of the performance of a laser fluorescence device for detecting caries. J Am Dent Assoc 135: 1413-1426, 2004. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0051
  20. Hope CK, de Josselin de Jong E, Field MR, Valappil SP, Higham SM: Photobleaching of red fluorescence in oral biofilms. J Periodontal Res 46: 228-234, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.2010.01334.x
  21. Meller C, Heyduck C, Tranaeus S, Splieth C: A new in vivo method for measuring caries activity using quantitative light induced fluorescence. Caries Res 40: 90-96, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091053
  22. Oh HY, Jung HI, Ku HM, Kim BI: The effects of the Q-Ray view on reliability of assessing a tooth status for dental hygiene process. J Dent Hyg Sci 12: 660-665, 2012.
  23. Weiss EI, Tzohar A, Kaffe I, Littner MM, Gelernter I, Eli I: Interpretation of bitewing radiographs. Part 2. Evaluation of the size of approximal lesions and need for treatment. J Dent 24: 385-388, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(95)00112-3
  24. Kidd EA, Pitts NB: A reappraisal of the value of the bite-wing radiograph in the diagnosis of posterior proximal caries. Br Dent J 169: 195-200, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4807325
  25. Senel B, Kamburoglu K, Ucok O, Yuksel SP, Ozen T, Avsever H: Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 39: 501-511, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr/28628723
  26. Pretty IA, Edgar WM, Higham SM: The effect of ambient light on QLF analyses. J Oral Rehabil 29: 369-373, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00914.x