الفهرس 
Title : Reliability of Light Induced fluorescence Intraoral Camera Versus Visual-Tactile Method in Assessment of marginal integrity of Resin Composite Restorations Diagnostic Invivo Study
ContentsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 109 |  |  |
| | | from | 109 | | |
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to compare diagnostic predictive values of a light induced fluorescence intraoral camera versus those of the visual-tactile assessment method according to FDI criteria in clinical evaluation of the margins of resin composite restorations. The study was approved by the ethics committee and informed consents were signed by the participants. A total of 29 volunteer patients were assigned in this study where each patient had one or two (anterior/posterior) resin composite restorations. The restoration margins in each tooth were examined by three calibrated examiners with different levels of experience using two diagnostic methods, visual-tactile assessment method using FDI criteria (esthetic, functional and biological) and light induced fluorescence intraoral camera through which intraoral daylight images were taken for the restorations using the daylight interchangeable head and then the fluorescence measurements were performed using the fluorescence induced interchangeable head. The assessed restorations were categorized according to its location as anterior or posterior restorations and each of which were categorized as a recently placed restoration (less than 1 month) or an old restoration (more than 1 year). Each diagnostic method was repeated three times, immediate, after 20 minutes and after one week interval to calculate intra-examiner repeatability and inter-examiner reproducibility using Fleiss{u2019} Kappa statistics. Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient was used to correlate between both diagnostic methods and Chi-square test was used to compare the scores of both methods. The significance level (p = 0.05)