Restorative treatment decision making with unaided visual examination, Intraoral camera and operating microscope

Erten H., Uctasli M., Akarslan Z. , Uzun O., Semiz M.

OPERATIVE DENTISTRY, vol.31, no.1, pp.55-59, 2006 (Journal Indexed in SCI) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 31 Issue: 1
  • Publication Date: 2006
  • Doi Number: 10.2341/04-173
  • Title of Journal : OPERATIVE DENTISTRY
  • Page Numbers: pp.55-59


This study assessed the restorative treatment options of the occlusal surfaces of teeth examined with unaided visual assistance, an intraoral camera and an operating microscope. Sixty-eight extracted human molars were mounted to perform mouth models with a premolar in contact on both sides. Four observers examined the models in a phantom head, which simulated clinical conditions, using three techniques: unaided visual examination, intraoral camera and operating microscope. The observers were asked to assess the occlusal surface of each tooth and make a treatment decision based on the following scale: 1) the occlusal surface being sound and "not needing a restoration," 2) the occlusal surface having a subsurface or enamel lesion. No operative treatment was needed at this visit, but special attention was given to this surface at recall visits: "preventive care-defer treatment" and 3) the surface had a carious lesion and "needed a restoration." The teeth were then sectioned in the mesio-distal direction and examined under a stereomicroscope with 10x magnification to determine the true extent of caries. Statistical analysis was conducted by calculating percentages and kappa values of the restorative treatment scores based on examinations by four observers. According to all the observers' treatment decisions, the kappa values were found to be 0.341 (p<0.001), 0.471 (p<0.001) and 0.345 (p<0.001) for unaided visual examination, intraoral camera and operating microscope, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the intraoral camera and the other two methods (p<0.05), while there was no significant difference between the unaided visual examination and operating microscope (p>0.05).