北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2019, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (1): 59-64. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.01.011

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

近红外光透照技术诊断乳磨牙早期邻面龋

周琼,彭楚芳,秦满()   

  1. 北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院,儿童口腔科 国家口腔疾病临床医学研究中心 口腔数字化医疗技术和材料国家工程实验室 口腔数字医学北京市重点实验室, 北京 100081
  • 收稿日期:2017-10-11 出版日期:2019-02-18 发布日期:2019-02-26
  • 通讯作者: 秦满 E-mail:qin-man@foxmail.com
  • 基金资助:
    北京大学口腔医院临床新技术新疗法项目(PKUSSNCT-16B10)

Near-infrared light transillumination for detection of incipient proximal caries in primary molars

Qiong ZHOU,Chu-fang PENG,Man QIN()   

  1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100081, China
  • Received:2017-10-11 Online:2019-02-18 Published:2019-02-26
  • Contact: Man QIN E-mail:qin-man@foxmail.com
  • Supported by:
    Supported by the Program for New Clinical Techniques and Therapies of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology(PKUSSNCT-16B10)

RICH HTML

  

摘要:

目的:评价近红外光透照技术(near-infrared light transillumination,NILT,商品名DIAGNOcam)诊断乳磨牙早期邻面龋的应用价值。方法:对北京大学口腔医院儿童口腔科4~9岁疑有乳磨牙早期邻面龋的患儿进行视诊、咬合翼片和DIAGNOcam检查,龋齿指数记录为0(无龋)、1(釉质浅层龋)、2(釉质深层龋不超出釉牙本质界)、3(牙本质龋)。相邻2颗乳磨牙中至少1颗牙齿符合侵入性治疗标准方可纳入研究,即要求至少两项检查的龋齿指数≥2。对龋齿指数≥2的牙齿行侵入性治疗,直视下观察相邻乳磨牙的情况,若龋坏成洞,则也行侵入性治疗。将直视下龋洞深度与釉牙本质界的关系作为金标准,比较3种检查方法诊断乳磨牙早期邻面龋的灵敏度、特异度和准确度。结果:共纳入36例患儿104个乳磨牙邻面,其中,5个牙面最终诊断为无龋,20个牙面诊断为釉质浅层龋,79个牙面进行了侵入性治疗,包括22个牙面龋洞达釉牙本质界,57个牙面龋洞达牙本质层内。视诊、咬合翼片和DIAGNOcam诊断乳磨牙早期邻面龋的灵敏度为68.69%、81.82%、78.79%,特异度为100.00%、100.00%、80.00%,准确度为75.96%、85.65%、78.85%。对于釉质浅层龋,视诊诊断的灵敏度最低,仅为10.00%,DIAGNOcam的灵敏度(60.00%)高于咬合翼片(40.00%);对于釉质深层龋的诊断灵敏度,咬合翼片(86.36%)>DIAGNOcam(72.73%)>视诊(68.18%);对于牙本质龋,3种方法的诊断灵敏度均超过85%,咬合翼片最高为94.74%。结论:DIAGNOcam诊断乳磨牙早期邻面龋具有接近于咬合翼片的准确度,且使用安全、简便、无辐射,适用于儿童口腔临床。

关键词: 乳牙, 龋齿, 透照法, 诊断

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the practical value of near-infrared light transillumination (NILT, DIAGNOcam) on detection of incipient proximal caries in primary molars. Methods: In this study, 4-9-year-old children with suspicious proximal lesions in primary molars were recruited. The target teeth were examined with clinical examination, bitewing radiograph and DIAGNOcam. And the caries indexes were rated as 0 (no caries), 1 (caries reaching outer 1/2 enamel), 2 (caries reaching inner 1/2 ena-mel), and 3 (dentine caries). Those primary molars with at least one of the adjacent molars according with the criteria of invasive treatment, i.e. the teeth were diagnosed as caries reaching inner 1/2 enamel or dentine with at least two detection methods, were included. The target teeth with caries index ≥2 accepted the invasive treatment. And the caries status of the adjacent teeth was observed under direct vision and those teeth of caries index ≥2 would also accept the invasive treatment. The relationship of lesions to enamel-dentine junction (EDJ) were recorded and used as reference standard to compare the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of those three methods in detecting the incipient proximal caries in primary molars. Results: In this study, 36 children with 104 suspicious proximal lesions in primary molars were recruited, of which 5 were diagnosed as no caries, 20 were diagnosed as superficial enamel caries, and 79 accepted invasive treatment, of which 22 were diagnosed as EDJ caries, and 57 as dentine caries. The sensitivity of clinical examination, bitewing radiograph, and DIAGNOcam were 68.69%, 81.82%, 78.79%, respectively. The specificity were 100.00%, 100.00%, 80.00%, and the accuracy were 75.96%, 85.65%, 78.85%, respectively. As for superficial enamel caries, the sensitivity of cli-nical examination was lowest, only 10%, while DIAGNOcam was 60%, higher than 40% of bitewing radiograph. As for EDJ caries, the sensitivity of bitewing radiograph was highest as 86.36%, followed by DIAGNOcam 72.73% and clinical examination 68.18%. As for dentine caries, the sensitivity of the three detection methods were higher than 85%, of which bitewing radiograph was the highest as 94.74%. Conclusion: The accuracy of DIAGNOcam in detecting incipient proximal caries in primary molars was comparable to that of bitewing radiograph. It was safe, and convenient with no exposure to radiation, which was applicable to be used in pediatric dentistry.

Key words: Deciduous tooth, Dental caries, Transillumination, Diagnosis

中图分类号: 

  • R781.1

图1

研究过程流程图"

图2

口外模仿DIAGNOcam在口内检查的情况"

图3

左下第一乳磨牙远中邻面及第二乳磨牙近中邻面龋"

表1

侵入性治疗获得的龋齿诊断结果"

Tooth Intact Outer
enamel
Inner
enamel
Dentine Total
Upper first primary molar 0 6 4 15 25
Upper second primary molar 0 5 8 12 25
Lower first primary molar 1 1 8 18 28
Lower second primary molar 4 8 2 12 26
Total 5 20 22 57 104

表2

视诊、咬合翼片和DIAGNOcam诊断乳磨牙早期邻面龋的灵敏度、特异度和准确度比较"

Items Visual Bitewing DIAGNOcam
Sensitivity 68.69% 81.82% 78.79%
Specificity 100.00% 100.00% 80.00%
Accuracy 75.96% 85.65% 78.85%

表3

视诊、咬合翼片及DIAGNOcam诊断乳磨牙邻面不同程度龋齿的灵敏度比较"

Items Visual Bitewing DIAGNOcam
Outer enamel 10.00% 40.00% 60.00%
Inner enamel 68.18% 86.36% 72.73%
Dentine 89.47% 94.74% 87.72%

表4

采用并联试验比较视诊、咬合翼片及DIAGNOcam诊断乳磨牙邻面不同程度龋齿的灵敏度"

Items V or B V or D D or B V or D or B
Outer enamel 40.00% 60.00% 70.00% 70.00%
Inner enamel 95.45% 86.36% 100.00% 100.00%
Dentine 98.25% 98.25% 100.00% 100.00%

表5

采用串联试验比较视诊、咬合翼片及DIAGNOcam诊断乳磨牙邻面不同程度龋齿的灵敏度"

Items V & B V & D D & B V & D & B
Outer enamel 10.00% 10.00% 30.00% 10.00%
Inner enamel 59.09% 54.55% 59.09% 45.45%
Dentine 87.72% 85.96% 87.72% 82.46%

表6

视诊、咬合翼片和DIAGNOcam诊断不同牙位乳磨牙邻面龋的灵敏度比较"

Tooth Visual Bitewing DIAGNOcam
Upper first primary molar 68.00% 84.00% 40.00%
Upper second primary molar 68.00% 80.00% 96.00%
Lower first primary molar 85.19% 92.59% 92.59%
Lower second primary molar 50.00% 68.18% 86.36%

图4

DIAGNOcam和咬合翼片检查右上第一、第二乳磨牙邻面龋的比较"

[1] 葛立宏 . 儿童口腔医学 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2012: 113.
[2] Verdonschot EH, Angmar-Månsson B, ten Bosch JJ , et al. Deve-lopments in caries diagnosis and their relationship to treatment decisions and quality of care. ORCA Saturday Afternoon Symposium 1997[J]. Caries Res, 1999,33(1):32-40.
doi: 10.1159/000016493
[3] Wenzel A . Bitewing and digital bitewing radiography for detection of caries lesions[J]. J Dent Res, 2004,83:C72-C75.
doi: 10.1177/154405910408301S14 pmid: 15286126
[4] Friedman J, Marcus MI . Transillumination of theoral cavity with use of fiber optics[J]. J Am Dent Assoc, 1970,80(4):801-809.
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1970.0117 pmid: 5264574
[5] 陈君, 岳林 . 对光纤透照法诊断后牙邻面龋的评价[J]. 现代口腔医学杂志, 1998,12(3):178-180.
[6] Ye SY, Kim JY, Ro JH , et al. Detecting incipient caries using front-illuminated infrared light scattering imaging[J]. Trans Electr Electron Mater, 2012,13(6):310-316.
doi: 10.4313/TEEM.2012.13.6.310
[7] Astvaldsdóttir A, Ahlund K, Holbrook WP , et al. Approximal caries detection by DIFOTI: in vitro comparison of diagnostic accuracy/efficacy with film and digital radiography[J]. Int J Dent, 2012,326401. doi: 10.1155/2012/326401.
doi: 10.1155/2012/326401 pmid: 23213335
[8] Abdelaziz M, Krejci I . DIAGNOcam—a near infrared digital imaging transillumination (NIDIT) technology[J]. Int J Esthet Dent, 2015,10(1):158-165.
pmid: 25625132
[9] 高洁, 李波, 刘月华 . 乳切牙牙体硬组织的扫描电镜观察及临床分析[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2008,24(2):274-276.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-3733.2008.02.029
[10] 于世凤 . 口腔组织病理学 [M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2006: 141-147.
[11] Abogazalah N, Eckert GJ, Ando M . In vitro performance of near infrared light transillumination at 780-nm and digital radiography for detection of non-cavitated approximal caries[J]. J Dent, 2017,63:44-50.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.05.018 pmid: 28559050
[12] Kühnisch J, Söchtig F, Pitchika V , et. al. In vivo validation of near-infrared light transillumination for interproximal dentin caries detection[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2016,20(4):821-829.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1559-4 pmid: 26374746
[13] Mejàre I, Gröndahl HG, Carlstedt K , et al. Accuracy at radiography and probing for the diagnosis of proximal caries[J]. Scand J Dent Res, 1985,93(2):178-184.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1985.tb01328.x pmid: 3858967
[14] 于江利, 唐仁韬, 冯琳 , 等. 数字化光纤透照法判断龋洞深度[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017,49(1):81-85.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-167X.2017.01.014
[1] 陈心心, 唐哲, 乔艳春, 荣文笙. 北京市密云区4岁儿童患龋状况及其与龋活跃性检测的相关性[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(5): 833-838.
[2] 钟华, 李原, 徐丽玲, 白明欣, 苏茵. 18F-FDG PET/CT在风湿免疫病中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(5): 853-859.
[3] 李正芳,罗采南,武丽君,吴雪,孟新艳,陈晓梅,石亚妹,钟岩. 抗氨基甲酰化蛋白抗体在诊断类风湿关节炎中的应用价值[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(4): 729-734.
[4] 姚海红,杨帆,唐素玫,张霞,何菁,贾园. 系统性红斑狼疮及成人Still病合并巨噬细胞活化综合征的临床特点及诊断指标[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(6): 966-974.
[5] 熊焰,李鑫,梁丽,李东,鄢丽敏,李雪迎,邸吉廷,李挺. 甲状腺粗针穿刺活检病理诊断的准确性评估[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(2): 234-242.
[6] 哈雪梅,姚永正,孙莉华,辛春杨,熊焰. 实性肺胎盘样变形1例及文献复习[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(2): 357-361.
[7] 宁博涵,张青霞,杨慧,董颖. 伴间质细胞增生、玻璃样变性及索状结构的子宫内膜样腺癌1例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(2): 366-369.
[8] 陈适,刘田. 重视系统性血管炎的早期识别和个体化治疗[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(6): 1065-1067.
[9] 曹瑞洁,姚中强,焦朋清,崔立刚. 不同分类标准对中国大动脉炎的诊断效能比较[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(6): 1128-1133.
[10] 徐朝焰,林长艺,叶达梅,吴培埕,宋明辉,刘有添,邓琼,黄雪艳,范忠晓,游雪兰. 感染性关节炎诊断分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(6): 1234-1237.
[11] 郝哲,岳蜀华,周利群. 拉曼技术在泌尿系统肿瘤检测中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(4): 779-784.
[12] 于博,赵扬玉,张喆,王永清. 妊娠合并感染性心内膜炎1例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(3): 578-580.
[13] 冯莎蔚,国慧,王勇,赵一姣,刘鹤. 乳牙数字化参考牙冠模型的初步构建[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(2): 327-334.
[14] 田靖,秦满,陈洁,夏斌. 失活剂烧伤致乳磨牙早失及恒牙胚丧失2例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(2): 381-385.
[15] 孟广艳,张筠肖,张渝昕,刘燕鹰. IgG4相关性疾病中枢神经系统受累的临床特点分析[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(6): 1043-1048.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!