Haneen A ELmoselhy, Mohamed F. Haridy And Olfat E. Hassanein,

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To Assess The Reliability And Reproducibility Of Secondary Caries Diagnosis Using Light Induced Fluorescence Device ?Soprolife? In Comparison To Conventional Visual-tactile Method According To Modified USPHS Restoration Assessment.

Materials and Methods: A Total Of 29 Volunteer Patients Were Assigned In This Study. Each Patient Had At Least One Defective Posterior Occlusal Resin Composite Restoration. The Restoration Was Evaluated By Two Diagnostic Methods (D), Where D1 Represents Visual-tactile Assessment Method (according To Modified USPHS1) And D2 Represents Light Induced Fluorescence Intraoral Camera(SoproLife Camera) Intra And Inter-rater Reliability Were Analyzed Using Cohen?s And Fleiss? Kappa Respectively. McNemar?s Test Was Used To Study Inter And Intro Group Comparisons

Results: McNemar?s Test Showed That For All Raters And In Different Follow-up Intervals There Was No Significant Difference In Caries Detection With Both Methods (P>0.005). Conclusion: The Conventional Visual-tactile Method As Well As The Light Fluorescence Device SOPROLIFE Were Found To Be Valuable Complementary Diagnostic Methods For Diagnosis Of Secondary Caries Around Existing Restorations.