Aya Mohamed Adly , Shereen Hafez Ibrahim And Amira Farid El-Zoghby,

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To Compare The Reliability 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.

Materials and Methods: A Total Of 29 Volunteer Patients Having At Least One Or Two (anterior/posterior) Resin Composite Restorations Were Assigned In The Study With Total 40 Restorations Where Each Restoration�s Margins Was Examined By Three Calibrated Examiners With Different Levels Of Experience Using Two Diagnostic Methods, Visual-tactile Assessment Method (FDI Criteria) (D1) And Light Induced Fluorescence Intraoral Camera (D2). The Assessed Restorations Were Categorized According To Its Location As Anterior Or Posterior Restorations And Each Of Which Were Categorized As Recently Placed (less Than 1 Month) Or Old (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� Kappa Statistics.

Results: Regarding Intra-examiner Repeatability, Fleiss� Kappa Results Between Different Readings Of Each Examiner In Visual-tactile Method Using FDI Criteria Ranged Between (0.8968 � 0.9886), While For Light Induced Fluorescence Intraoral Camera, It Ranged Between (0.9344 � 1.000). Regarding Inter-examiner Reproducibility, Fleiss� Kappa Results Between The Three Examiners In Visual-tactile Method Using FDI Criteria Ranged Between (0.8032 � 0.9253), While For Light Induced Fluorescence Camera, It Was (1.000). Conclusion: Both Light-induced Fluorescence Camera And Visual-tactile Assessment Method According To FDI Criteria Are Reliable Methods Having Comparable Perfect Agreement Regarding Intra-examiner Repeatability And Inter-examiner Reproducibility In Clinical Evaluation Of Margins Of Resin Composite Restorations.