HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 135, No 10, 1413-1426. © 2004 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by BADER, J. D. Articles by SHUGARS, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by BADER, J. D. Articles by SHUGARS, D. A. Related Collections Dental Equipment/Instruments

Background. The DIAGNOdent, or DD (KaVo America, Lake Zurich, Ill.), a device for detecting caries using laser fluorescence, has been growing in popularity during the past three years. Although several evaluations of its diagnostic performance have appeared in the literature, the range of reported performances is extensive.

Types of Studies Reviewed. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess the diagnostic performance of the DD. Of 115 articles identified in the search, 25 studies were included in the review according to criteria requiring histologic validation and outcomes expressed as sensitivity and specificity values.

Results. For detection of dentinal caries, sensitivity values ranged widely (0.19 to 1.0), although most tended to be high. Specificity values exhibited a similar pattern, ranging from 0.52 to 1.0. In comparison with visual assessment methods, the DD exhibited a sensitivity value that was almost always higher and a specificity value that was almost always lower. The body of evidence is characterized largely by in vitro studies, so that generalization to the clinical setting is uncertain. Because caries thresholds varied substantially across the studies, synthesized estimates of performance were not possible.

Conclusions and Clinical Implications. The DD clearly is more sensitive than traditional diagnostic methods; however, the increased likelihood of false-positive diagnoses compared with that with visual methods limits its usefulness as a principal diagnostic tool.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. F. Gooch, S. O. Griffin, S. K. Gray, W. G. Kohn, R. G. Rozier, M. Siegal, M. Fontana, D. Brunson, N. Carter, D. K. Curtis, et al. Preventing Dental Caries Through School-Based Sealant Programs: Updated Recommendations and Reviews of Evidence J Am Dent Assoc, November 1, 2009; 140(11): 1356 - 1365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. d. A. Rodrigues, I. Hug, M. B. Diniz, R. C.L. Cordeiro, and A. Lussi The Influence of Zero-Value Subtraction on the Performance of Two Laser Fluorescence Devices for Detecting Occlusal Caries In Vitro J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2008; 139(8): 1105 - 1112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Beauchamp, P. W. Caufield, J. J. Crall, K. Donly, R. Feigal, B. Gooch, A. Ismail, W. Kohn, M. Siegal, and R. Simonsen Evidence-Based Clinical Recommendations for the Use of Pit-and-Fissure Sealants: A Report of the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs J Am Dent Assoc, March 1, 2008; 139(3): 257 - 268. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]