Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Rezidüel Çürük Tespitinde Kullanılan Geleneksel Yöntemin Farklı Yöntemlerle Klinik Olarak Doğrulanması

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 402 - 406, 31.08.2021
https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.673645

Abstract

Amaç: Çürüğün uzaklaştırılmasında kullanılan geleneksel yöntem; yumuşak, enfekte çürük dokuyu sert ve koyu renkli bir dentin yüzeyine ulaşana kadar uzaklaştırmaktır. Rezidüel çürük tespiti için rutinde kullanılan fakat sübjektif bir yöntem olan geleneksel görsel ve dokunsal muayenenin doğruluğu, dental loupe, floresan destekli (Fluorescence Aided Caries Excavation–FACE) bir cihaz ve çürük tespit boyası (CDD) kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Kliniği’nde rutin çürük tedavisi uygulanmış olan ve kavitede kalan çürüğün geleneksel görsel ve dokunsal muayenenin yanı sıra üç farklı destekleyici yöntem (Dental loupe, FACE ve CDD) ile değerlendirilip verileri kaydedilmiş olan hastalar arasından Sınıf-II (MO–DO–MOD) çürüklü molar dişi bulunan 120 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Dişin çenelerde bulunduğu kadrana ve kavitede kalan çürüğün lokalizasyonuna (Gingival basamak, aksiyal duvar, bukkal duvar, lingual duvar, pulpal duvar, mine-dentin sınırı) göre kaydedilen veriler de değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel analizde Kendall’s W ve Ki-kare testi uygulandı.
Bulgular: Geleneksel görsel ve dokunsal muayene kriterlerine göre çürüksüz olduğu kabul edilen fakat yine de kararsız kalınan 120 kavitenin 61’inin(%50,83) diğer üç yöntemle de çürüksüz olduğu doğrulandı. 35 kavitenin(%29,17) sadece CDD ile boyandığı, 24 kavitenin(%20) hem CDD ile boyandığı hem de FACE cihazı ile çürüklü olduğu tespit edildi. Rezidüel çürüğü tespit etme açısından görsel ve dokunsal muayene ile CDD (p<0,05) arasında istatistiksel bir fark olmasına rağmen, FACE cihazı(p>0,05) ve dental loupe(p>0,05) ile arasında anlamlı bir fark görülmedi. Çürük tespit edilen dişlerin en çok sağ üst kadranda(%37,28) yer aldığı bulundu.
Sonuç: Rezidüel çürük tespitinde kullanılan FACE yönteminin görsel ve dokunsal muayeneyi destekleyici objektif bir yöntem olarak kabul edilebileceği sonucuna varılmıştır.

References

  • 1. Kroetze HJP, Plasschaert MA, Hof MA, Truin GJ. Prevalence and need for replacement of amalgam and composite in Dutch adults. J Dent Res 1990; 69:1270–4.
  • 2. Unlu N, Ermis RB, Sener S, Kucukyilmaz E, Cetin AR. An n vitro comparison of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries. Int J Dent 2010; 2010:864935.
  • 3. Meller C, Heyduck C, Tranaeus S, Splieth C. A new in vivo method for measuring caries activity using quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Caries Res 2006; 40:90-96.
  • 4. Celiberti P, Francescut P, Lussi A. Performance of four dentine excavation methods in deciduous teeth. Caries Res 2006; 40:117-123.
  • 5. Iwami Y, Yamamoto H, Hayashi M, Ebisu S. Relationship between laser fluorescence and bacterial invasion in arrested dentinal carious lesions. Lasers Med Sci 2011; 26(44):439–44.
  • 6. Banerjee A, Watson TF, Kidd EA. Dentine caries: take it or leave it? Dent Update 2000; 27:272–6.
  • 7. Kidd EA, Joyston-Bechal S, Beighton D. Microbiological validation of assessments of caries activity during cavity preparation. Caries Res 1993; 27:402–8.
  • 8. Meller C, Heyduck C, Tranaeus S, Splieth C. A new in vivo method for measuring caries activity using quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Caries Res 2006; 40:90-6.
  • 9. Ganter P, Al-Ahmad A, Wrbas KT, Hellwig E, Altenburger MJ. The use of computer-assisted FACE for minimalinvasive caries excavation. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18:745-51.
  • 10. da Silva RP, Assaf AV, Pereira SM, Mialhe FL, Ambrosano GM, Meneghim Mde C, et al. Validity of caries-detection methods under epidemiological setting. Am J Dent. 2011; 24:363–6.
  • 11. Lennon AM, BuchallaW, Switalski L, Stookey GK. Residual caries detection using visible fluorescence. Caries Res 2002; 36:315–9.
  • 12. Lennon AM. Fluorescence-aided caries excavation (FACE) compared to conventional method. Oper Dent 2003; 28:341–5.
  • 13. Lennon AM, Buchalla W, Rassner B, Becker K, Attin T. Efficiency of four caries excavation methods compared. Oper Dent 2006; 31:551–5.
  • 14. Lennon AM, Attin T, Buchalla W. Quantity of remaining bacteria and cavity size after excavation with FACE, caries detector dye and conventional excavation in vitro. Oper Dent 2007; 32:236–41.
  • 15. Peskersoy C, Turkun M, Onal B. Comparative clinical evaluation of the efficacy of a new method for caries diagnosis and excavation. J Conserv Dent. 2015; 18(5):364-8.
  • 16. Lai G, Zhu L, Xu X, Kunzelmann KH. An in vitro comparison of fluorescence-aided caries excavation and conventional excavation by microhardness testing. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18:599-605.
  • 17. Coulthwaite L, Pretty IA, Smith PW, Higham SM, Verran J. The microbiological origin of fluorescence observed in plaque on dentures during QLF analysis. Caries Res 2006; 40:112-6.
  • 18. Koenig K, Schneckenburger H. Laser-induced autofluorescence for medical diagnosis. J Fluoresc 1994; 4:17-40.
  • 19. Lai G, Kaisarly D, Xu X, Kunzelmann KH. MicroCTbased comparison between fluorescence-aided caries Detection of residual caries excavation and conventional excavation. Am J Dent 2014; 27:12-6.
  • 20. Koç Vural U, Kütük ZB, Ergin E, Yalçın Çakır F, Gürgan S. Comparison of two different methods of detecting residual caries. Restor Dent Endod. 2017; 42(1):48-53.
  • 21. Krause F, Braun A, Eberhard J, Jepsen S. Laser fluorescence measurements compared to electrical resistance of residual dentine in excavated cavities in vivo. Caries Res 2007; 41:135-40.
  • 22. Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: A micro-CT investigation. J Dent 2011; 39:154-62.
Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 2, 402 - 406, 31.08.2021
https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.673645

Abstract

References

  • 1. Kroetze HJP, Plasschaert MA, Hof MA, Truin GJ. Prevalence and need for replacement of amalgam and composite in Dutch adults. J Dent Res 1990; 69:1270–4.
  • 2. Unlu N, Ermis RB, Sener S, Kucukyilmaz E, Cetin AR. An n vitro comparison of different diagnostic methods in detection of residual dentinal caries. Int J Dent 2010; 2010:864935.
  • 3. Meller C, Heyduck C, Tranaeus S, Splieth C. A new in vivo method for measuring caries activity using quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Caries Res 2006; 40:90-96.
  • 4. Celiberti P, Francescut P, Lussi A. Performance of four dentine excavation methods in deciduous teeth. Caries Res 2006; 40:117-123.
  • 5. Iwami Y, Yamamoto H, Hayashi M, Ebisu S. Relationship between laser fluorescence and bacterial invasion in arrested dentinal carious lesions. Lasers Med Sci 2011; 26(44):439–44.
  • 6. Banerjee A, Watson TF, Kidd EA. Dentine caries: take it or leave it? Dent Update 2000; 27:272–6.
  • 7. Kidd EA, Joyston-Bechal S, Beighton D. Microbiological validation of assessments of caries activity during cavity preparation. Caries Res 1993; 27:402–8.
  • 8. Meller C, Heyduck C, Tranaeus S, Splieth C. A new in vivo method for measuring caries activity using quantitative light-induced fluorescence. Caries Res 2006; 40:90-6.
  • 9. Ganter P, Al-Ahmad A, Wrbas KT, Hellwig E, Altenburger MJ. The use of computer-assisted FACE for minimalinvasive caries excavation. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18:745-51.
  • 10. da Silva RP, Assaf AV, Pereira SM, Mialhe FL, Ambrosano GM, Meneghim Mde C, et al. Validity of caries-detection methods under epidemiological setting. Am J Dent. 2011; 24:363–6.
  • 11. Lennon AM, BuchallaW, Switalski L, Stookey GK. Residual caries detection using visible fluorescence. Caries Res 2002; 36:315–9.
  • 12. Lennon AM. Fluorescence-aided caries excavation (FACE) compared to conventional method. Oper Dent 2003; 28:341–5.
  • 13. Lennon AM, Buchalla W, Rassner B, Becker K, Attin T. Efficiency of four caries excavation methods compared. Oper Dent 2006; 31:551–5.
  • 14. Lennon AM, Attin T, Buchalla W. Quantity of remaining bacteria and cavity size after excavation with FACE, caries detector dye and conventional excavation in vitro. Oper Dent 2007; 32:236–41.
  • 15. Peskersoy C, Turkun M, Onal B. Comparative clinical evaluation of the efficacy of a new method for caries diagnosis and excavation. J Conserv Dent. 2015; 18(5):364-8.
  • 16. Lai G, Zhu L, Xu X, Kunzelmann KH. An in vitro comparison of fluorescence-aided caries excavation and conventional excavation by microhardness testing. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18:599-605.
  • 17. Coulthwaite L, Pretty IA, Smith PW, Higham SM, Verran J. The microbiological origin of fluorescence observed in plaque on dentures during QLF analysis. Caries Res 2006; 40:112-6.
  • 18. Koenig K, Schneckenburger H. Laser-induced autofluorescence for medical diagnosis. J Fluoresc 1994; 4:17-40.
  • 19. Lai G, Kaisarly D, Xu X, Kunzelmann KH. MicroCTbased comparison between fluorescence-aided caries Detection of residual caries excavation and conventional excavation. Am J Dent 2014; 27:12-6.
  • 20. Koç Vural U, Kütük ZB, Ergin E, Yalçın Çakır F, Gürgan S. Comparison of two different methods of detecting residual caries. Restor Dent Endod. 2017; 42(1):48-53.
  • 21. Krause F, Braun A, Eberhard J, Jepsen S. Laser fluorescence measurements compared to electrical resistance of residual dentine in excavated cavities in vivo. Caries Res 2007; 41:135-40.
  • 22. Neves Ade A, Coutinho E, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Caries-removal effectiveness and minimal-invasiveness potential of caries-excavation techniques: A micro-CT investigation. J Dent 2011; 39:154-62.
There are 22 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Dentistry
Journal Section Research
Authors

Fatma Sağ Güngör

Publication Date August 31, 2021
Submission Date January 13, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 8 Issue: 2

Cite

Vancouver Sağ Güngör F. Rezidüel Çürük Tespitinde Kullanılan Geleneksel Yöntemin Farklı Yöntemlerle Klinik Olarak Doğrulanması. Selcuk Dent J. 2021;8(2):402-6.