Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging with Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries

Ahmad Bittar; Elif Alkan; Dilek Tağtekin

doi:10.7126/cumudj.1786476

TR EN

QrayCam Pro ile Quadrant Odaklı ve Tam Ark QLF Görüntülemenin Oklüzal Çürük Tanısındaki Performansının Karşılaştırılması: Kesitsel Tanısal Doğruluk Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: QrayCam Pro ile quadrant odaklı (yarım çene) ve tam ark QLF görüntülemenin, birleşik ICDAS+bitewing referansına karşı oklüzal çürük tanısındaki performansını karşılaştırmak. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kırk beş yetişkin (ortalama yaş 25,1) her biri bir oklüzal yüzey (sağlam veya çürük) sağladı. Her yüzey iki protokolle görüntülendi: quadrant odaklı ve tam ark. Q-ray Clinical yazılımından ΔF_max (yeşil floresans kaybı), ΔR_max (kırmızı floresans değişimi) ve QS skorları elde edildi. Tanısal doğruluk (duyarlılık, özgüllük, ROC eğrisi altında kalan alan [AUC]) referansa göre hesaplandı; protokoller arası farklar MANOVA ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular ve Sonuçlar: Her iki protokol de yüksek performans gösterdi. ΔR_max için her iki modda AUC = 1.000, %100 duyarlılık ve özgüllük elde edildi. ΔF_max için quadrant görüntüleme AUC = 1.000’e ulaşırken, tam ark AUC = 0.993 (duyarlılık %92,3; özgüllük %94,7) saptandı. MANOVA toplam farkı anlamlı bulmadı (p = 0,790). Bununla birlikte, quadrant görüntüleme başlangıç mine lezyonlarını daha sık yakalama eğilimi gösterdi. Tarama ve dokümantasyon için tam ark verimli kalırken, erken lezyon hedeflendiğinde quadrant yaklaşımı sınırlı bir duyarlılık avantajı sağlayabilir ve AI tabanlı analiz iş akışlarına uygundur.

Keywords

Project Number

E-10840098-202.3.02-2855

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, İstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Klinik Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu onayıyla yürütülen kesitsel bir tanısal doğruluk çalışmasıdır (Onay No: E-10840098-202.3.02-2855; onay tarihi: 06 Mayıs 2025).

Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging with Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance of quadrant-focused (half-jaw) versus full-arch QLF imaging with QrayCam Pro for occlusal caries detection against a combined ICDAS+bitewing reference. Materials and Methods: Forty-five adults (mean age 25.1 years) each contributed one occlusal surface (sound or carious). Each surface was imaged under two protocols: quadrant-focused and full-arch. Q-ray Clinical software yielded ΔF_max (green fluorescence loss), ΔR_max (red fluorescence change), and QS scores. Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve [AUC]) was calculated versus the reference standard; protocol differences were assessed with MANOVA. Results: Both protocols showed high performance. For ΔR_max, both achieved AUC = 1.000 with 100% sensitivity and specificity. For ΔF_max, quadrant imaging achieved AUC = 1.000; full-arch had AUC = 0.993 (sensitivity 92.3%, specificity 94.7%). MANOVA found no significant overall difference between protocols (p = 0.790). Quadrant imaging tended to identify early enamel lesions more often. Conclusions: Quadrant-focused QLF imaging offers a small sensitivity advantage for incipient lesions while maintaining high specificity; full-arch imaging remains efficient for screening and documentation. Protocol choice can be tailored to early-lesion detection needs and AI-based analysis workflows.

Keywords

Project Number

E-10840098-202.3.02-2855

Ethical Statement

A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study was conducted with the approval of Medipol University Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee, Istanbul, Turkey (Approval No: E-10840098-202.3.02-2855; approval date: 06 May 2025).

References

1. World Health Organization. Oral health (Fact sheet). Updated 17 March 2025. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/oral-health. Accessed 19 February 2026.
2. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):51–59.
3. Foros P, Oikonomou E, Koletsi D, Rahiotis C. Detection Methods for Early Caries Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Caries Res. 2021;55(4):247–259.
4. Gimenez T, Braga MM, Raggio DP, Deery C, Ricketts DN, Mendes FM. Fluorescence-Based Methods for Detecting Caries Lesions: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Sources of Heterogeneity. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e60421.
5. van der Veen MH, de Josselin de Jong E. Application of quantitative light-induced fluorescence for assessing early caries lesions. In: Faller RV (ed.). Assessment of Oral Health. Monographs in Oral Science. Vol 17. Basel: Karger; 2000:144–162.
6. Angmar-Månsson B, ten Bosch JJ. Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF): a method for assessment of incipient caries lesions. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2001;30(6):298–307.
7. Amaechi BT, Higham SM. Quantitative light-induced fluorescence: a potential tool for general dental assessment. J Biomed Opt. 2002;7(1):7–13.
8. Lee ES, Hwang J, Cheng L, Jung HI, Kim BI. Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and locations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2025;15:39905.

9. Bittar A, Çetin T, Başyiğit GM, Gözetici-Çil B. Validity assessment of a third-generation light-induced fluorescence device in detecting proximal and occlusal caries lesions: a cross-sectional study. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2024;50:104368.
10. Ismail AI, Sohn W, Tellez M, Amaya A, Sen A, Hasson H, et al. The International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS): an integrated system for measuring dental caries. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35(3):170–178.
11. Ando M, Eckert GJ, Stookey GK, Zero DT. Effect of imaging geometry on evaluating natural white-spot lesions using quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Caries Res. 2004;38(1):39–44.
12. van der Kaaij NCW, Faaij MJF, Ten Cate JM, van der Veen MH. The reproducibility of assessment of white spot lesions adjacent to orthodontic brackets, with a quantitative light induced fluorescence digital camera at different rotations of teeth—an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):209.
13. Oh SH, Choi J-Y, Kim S-H. Evaluation of dental caries detection with quantitative light-induced fluorescence in comparison to different field-of-view devices. Sci Rep. 2022;12:6139.
14. Al-Khalifa KS, Ahmed WM, Azhari AA, Qaw MS, Alsheikh R, Alqudaihi FA, et al. The use of artificial intelligence in caries detection: a review. Bioengineering (Basel). 2024;11(9):936.
15. Marwaha J, Singla M, Nath A, Arya A. Revolutionizing the diagnosis of dental caries using artificial intelligence-based methods. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2025;28(5):401–405.
16. Park EY, Jeong S, Kang S, Cho J, Cho JY, Kim EK, et al. Tooth caries classification with quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) images using convolutional neural network for permanent teeth in vivo. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):981.
17. Ko HY, Kang SM, Kim HE, Kwon HK, Kim BI. Validation of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) for the detection of approximal caries in vitro. J Dent. 2015;43(5):568–575.
18. Kim ES, Lee ES, Kang SM, Jung EH, de Josselin de Jong E, Jung HI, et al. A new screening method to detect proximal dental caries using fluorescence imaging. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2017;20:257–262.
19. Yoon HI, Yoo MJ, Park EJ. Detection of proximal caries using quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital and laser fluorescence: a comparative study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017;9(6):432–438.
20. La Rosa GRM, Pedullà E, Chapple ILC, Pacino SA, Polosa R. The use of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in carious lesions research: a bibliometric review. J Dent. 2024;148:105220.
21. Kim SK, Lee ES, Kim BI. Generational shift for clinical application of the QLF system for evaluating tooth wear. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2024;50:104413.
22. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig L, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. Radiology. 2015;277(3):826–832.
23. Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Sample size determination for diagnostic accuracy studies involving binormal ROC curve indices. Stat Med. 1997;16(13):1529–1542.
24. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–845.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Restorative Dentistry, Dentistry (Other)

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Ahmad Bittar ^*
0009-0009-3305-5298
Türkiye

Elif Alkan
0000-0001-7167-6946
Türkiye

Dilek Tağtekin
0000-0002-2675-1764
Türkiye

Publication Date

July 1, 2026

Submission Date

September 18, 2025

Acceptance Date

May 13, 2026

Published in Issue

Year 2026 Volume: 29 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1786476

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA46ZM63BX

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Bittar, A., Alkan, E., & Tağtekin, D. (2026). Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging with Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, 29(2), 223-230. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1786476

AMA

1.Bittar A, Alkan E, Tağtekin D. Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging with Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2026;29(2):223-230. doi:10.7126/cumudj.1786476

Chicago

Bittar, Ahmad, Elif Alkan, and Dilek Tağtekin. 2026. “Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging With Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 29 (2): 223-30. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1786476.

EndNote

Bittar A, Alkan E, Tağtekin D (July 1, 2026) Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging with Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 29 2 223–230.

IEEE

[1]A. Bittar, E. Alkan, and D. Tağtekin, “Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging with Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries”, Cumhuriyet Dent J, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 223–230, July 2026, doi: 10.7126/cumudj.1786476.

ISNAD

Bittar, Ahmad - Alkan, Elif - Tağtekin, Dilek. “Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging With Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 29/2 (July 1, 2026): 223-230. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1786476.

JAMA

1.Bittar A, Alkan E, Tağtekin D. Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging with Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2026;29:223–230.

MLA

Bittar, Ahmad, et al. “Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging With Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries”. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, July 2026, pp. 223-30, doi:10.7126/cumudj.1786476.

Vancouver

1.Ahmad Bittar, Elif Alkan, Dilek Tağtekin. Diagnostic Performance of QrayCam Pro Fluorescence Imaging with Full-Arch versus Quadrant Field-of-View for Dental Caries. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2026 Jul. 1;29(2):223-30. doi:10.7126/cumudj.1786476