RSUSSH 2020

IN20-058 The Efficiency of Fluorescence Technique Used For Gingival Inflammation and Plaque Detection

Presenter: Paroj Piyakitsomboon
Rangsit University, Thailand

Abstract

          Periodontal disease is one of the most important oral health issues in Thai population due to high prevalence. Therefore, the instrument required for early detection clinically is an interesting topic to be further discussed to prevent disease progressions. The study recruited 40 human subjects. All subjects will undergo both standard examination and SOPROCARE® examination to detect gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation. Plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation were scored in numeric data by Sillness and Loe index in P0-P3 and G0-G3, respectively. The result of dental plaque score and gingival inflammation found that fluorescence examination had average score lower than clinical. While old and new plaque detection by SOPROCARE® and conventional method had the same result as 71.5% and gave the different result of 28.5%. This study found that sensitivity of fluorescence examination for dental plaque detection was 88.68%; whereas, specificity was 33.33%. Gingival inflammation detection had sensitivity of 83.79%; whereas, specificity was 50.00%. In other words, this method was sensitive for gingival inflammation detection. This could be concluded that the conventional method able to detect gingival inflammation and dental plaque more than fluorescence examination. ROC curve was also analyzed. SOPROCARE® in PERIO mode had high disease detection ability but did not suit for diagnostic assessment. However, it should be used as a tool for patient motivation for oral hygiene instruction.

Keywords: Fluorescence; conventional examination; gingival inflammation; dental plaque

Citation format:

Plianrungsi, J., Piyakitsomboon, P., Verayangkura, N., Ananthanandon, S., Sriyarun, S., & Prasertrungrueng, T.. (2020). The Efficiency of Fluorescence Technique Used For Gingival Inflammation and Plaque Detection. Proceeding in RSU International Research Conference, May 1, 2020. Pathum Thani, Thailand.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Dr. Sariya Nuchanardpanit, DDS (Chairperson)

1. This study concluded that the test has high sensitivity and low specificity. What is the possible cause of this result?

2. What type of patient or oral condition that suitable to use this equipment as an additional test?

Charawi Wannachat (Participant)

Thank you for a nice presentation. I would like to ask some questions

What formula or method is using to calculate the score?

 

Suchada Limsiriwong (Visitor)

Good presentation, could i have some question.

1) Could you explain that, Why your result are not corelated to the result of Peter and co-worker(2016)?

2) Do you have any data support for the accuracy of this device and what is the conventional clinical use of this device? 

Thank you.

Paroj Piyakitsomboon (Presenter)

Thank you so much อ.ทญ.ดร.สรียา นุชนาฏพนัต for the question. We would like to reply that
1. The result shown that the device has high sensitivity but low specificity in detection dental plaque and gingival inflammation might particularly due to patients’ factors, which was relatively difficult to be corrected. The relative size of the device to patients’ oral cavity and range of mouth opening were not correlated. The issue lies to the patient with small mouth opening. The angulation of device tip  to tooth surface weren’t in the proper position. The range and angulation of device’s focus in capturing intra-oral pictures should be perpendicular to tooth surfaces.
2. SOPROCARE is capable to use with all patient group with any oral condition. But anyhow, we recommended to use it as additional tool for screening only. Due to device’s low specificity level, therefore, it could be useful for patient’s motivation or for oral hygiene instruction. Patient able to see their real time oral condition on monitor screen via device’s intra-oral camera.

Paroj Piyakitsomboon (Presenter)

Thank you so much Dr.Charawi Wannachat for the question. Our research calculated the score from sensitivity and specificity level obtained from the study. Then, ROC curve was plotted to obtained the score.

Paroj Piyakitsomboon (Presenter)

Thank you so much Dr.Suchada Limsiriwong for the question. We would like to reply that
1. Our result was different from the study of Peter Rechmann (2016) was due to slight difference in study method. Our study compare SOPROCARE in PERIO mode to captured picture through DAYLGHT mode on tooth dyed with plaque detecting dye that led to lower specificity level the other study. Moreover, the limitation of patients’ factor of small mouth opening and the quality of computer monitor used. 
2. SOPROCARE is considered as a new technology in the market. The supporting data on obtained result was limited due to limited study on SOPROCARE. For our study, concluded the device performance in the discussion section that the device is recommended as a screening tool, not to be use as diagnostic tool due to its low specificity level. Therefore, it should be used as additional screening tool rather that routine clinical assessment device.