English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Dentin reactions to caries, crucial for pathogenesis and for the determination of the severity of caries lesions, are believed to be reasonably detected by stereomicroscopy (SM) and polarized light microscopy in quinoline (PLMQ), but accuracies are not available. Here, stereomicroscopy of wet (SW) and dry (SD) ground sections of natural occlusal caries lesions resulted in moderate (0.7, for normal dentin) and low accuracies (< 0.6, for carious and sclerotic dentin) as validated by contrast-corrected microradiography. Accuracies of PLMQ were moderate for both normal (0.71) and carious dentin (0.71). The hypothesis that detection of dentin reactions by SM and PLMQ would be influenced by the contrast quality of micrographic images was rejected. Dentin reactions were scored by SW, SD, PLMQ, and three types of microradiographic images with varying contrast qualities and each technique was compared against the one that resulted in the highest number of scores for each dentin reaction. Large differences resulted, mainly related to the detection of sclerotic dentin by both SW and SD, and normal and carious dentin by PLMQ. It is concluded that contrast-corrected microradiography should be preferred as the gold standard and SM and PLMQ should be avoided, but the relationship of PLMQ with dentin mineralization deserves further investigation.

Dentin reactions to caries are misinterpreted by histological “gold standards”