Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.

Erosion of dentin results in a complex multi-layered lesion. Several methods have been used to measure erosive substance loss of dentin, but were found to have only limited agreement, in parts because they assess different structural parameters. The present study compared the agreement of four diffe...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Falk Schwendicke, Geert Felstehausen, Clifton Carey, Christof Dörfer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4168231?pdf=render
id doaj-430c8f6038344e6996b2e333ebd0dfba
record_format Article
spelling doaj-430c8f6038344e6996b2e333ebd0dfba2020-11-24T21:27:11ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0199e10806410.1371/journal.pone.0108064Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.Falk SchwendickeGeert FelstehausenClifton CareyChristof DörferErosion of dentin results in a complex multi-layered lesion. Several methods have been used to measure erosive substance loss of dentin, but were found to have only limited agreement, in parts because they assess different structural parameters. The present study compared the agreement of four different methods (transversal microradiography [TMR], Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy [CLSM], Laser Profilometry [LPM] and modified Knoop Hardness measurement [KHM]) to measure erosive substance loss in vitro. Ninety-six dentin specimens were prepared from bovine roots, embedded, ground, polished and covered with nail-varnish except for an experimental window. Erosion was performed for 1 h using citric acid concentrations of 0.00% (control), 0.07%, 0.25% and 1.00% (n=24/group). Adjacent surfaces served as sound reference. Two examiners independently determined the substance loss. After 1 h erosion with 1% citric acid solution, substance losses (mean ± SD) of 12.0 ± 1.3 µm (TMR), 2.9 ± 1.3 µm (LPM), 3.9 ± 1.3 µm (KHM) and 17.0 ± 2.6 µm (CLSM) were detected. ROC curve analysis found all methods to have high accuracy for discriminating different degrees of erosive substance loss (AUC 0.83-1.00). Stepwise discriminatory analysis found TMR and CLSM to have the highest discriminatory power. All methods showed significant relative and proportional bias (p<0.001). The smallest albeit significant disagreement was found between LPM and KHM. No significant inter-rater bias was detected except for KHM. LPM is prone to underestimate erosive loss, possibly due to detection of the organic surface layer. KHM was not found suitable to measure erosive loss in dentin. TMR and CLSM detected the loss of mineralised tissue, showed high reliability, and had the highest discriminatory power. Different methods might be suitable to measure different structural parameters.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4168231?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Falk Schwendicke
Geert Felstehausen
Clifton Carey
Christof Dörfer
spellingShingle Falk Schwendicke
Geert Felstehausen
Clifton Carey
Christof Dörfer
Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Falk Schwendicke
Geert Felstehausen
Clifton Carey
Christof Dörfer
author_sort Falk Schwendicke
title Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.
title_short Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.
title_full Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.
title_fullStr Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.
title_sort comparison of four methods to assess erosive substance loss of dentin.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2014-01-01
description Erosion of dentin results in a complex multi-layered lesion. Several methods have been used to measure erosive substance loss of dentin, but were found to have only limited agreement, in parts because they assess different structural parameters. The present study compared the agreement of four different methods (transversal microradiography [TMR], Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy [CLSM], Laser Profilometry [LPM] and modified Knoop Hardness measurement [KHM]) to measure erosive substance loss in vitro. Ninety-six dentin specimens were prepared from bovine roots, embedded, ground, polished and covered with nail-varnish except for an experimental window. Erosion was performed for 1 h using citric acid concentrations of 0.00% (control), 0.07%, 0.25% and 1.00% (n=24/group). Adjacent surfaces served as sound reference. Two examiners independently determined the substance loss. After 1 h erosion with 1% citric acid solution, substance losses (mean ± SD) of 12.0 ± 1.3 µm (TMR), 2.9 ± 1.3 µm (LPM), 3.9 ± 1.3 µm (KHM) and 17.0 ± 2.6 µm (CLSM) were detected. ROC curve analysis found all methods to have high accuracy for discriminating different degrees of erosive substance loss (AUC 0.83-1.00). Stepwise discriminatory analysis found TMR and CLSM to have the highest discriminatory power. All methods showed significant relative and proportional bias (p<0.001). The smallest albeit significant disagreement was found between LPM and KHM. No significant inter-rater bias was detected except for KHM. LPM is prone to underestimate erosive loss, possibly due to detection of the organic surface layer. KHM was not found suitable to measure erosive loss in dentin. TMR and CLSM detected the loss of mineralised tissue, showed high reliability, and had the highest discriminatory power. Different methods might be suitable to measure different structural parameters.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4168231?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT falkschwendicke comparisonoffourmethodstoassesserosivesubstancelossofdentin
AT geertfelstehausen comparisonoffourmethodstoassesserosivesubstancelossofdentin
AT cliftoncarey comparisonoffourmethodstoassesserosivesubstancelossofdentin
AT christofdorfer comparisonoffourmethodstoassesserosivesubstancelossofdentin
_version_ 1725976155552481280