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

Aim: The aim of the presented study is to compare the effectiveness of the diagnosis with a dental microscope, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOcam) and X-ray examination in proximal caries diagnosis.\udMaterial and methods: Thirty-eight adult patients were examined. They were first examined with a dental mirror and a probe, under magnification 6.4 times. After that a diagnosis with DIAGNOcam was performed. Bitewing X-ray images were administered. The data from the three diagnostic methods was compared using SPSS 16 package of Windows. The lesions that were diagnosed as involving dentin were then excavated which served as a confirmation of the diagnosis.\udResults: The results of the study showed that dentinal lesions were detected with a high degree of correlation with all three diagnostic methods. The visual examination seriously underestimated lesions involving only enamel. In these cases there was a good correlation between laser fluorescence and X-ray data.\udConclusions: Based on the conducted study we could conclude that the diagnosis of proximal caries with DIAGNOcam is equivalent to X-ray, both being more accurate in cases with early lesions, compared to visual diagnosis

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THREE METHODS FOR PROXIMAL CARIES DIAGNOSIS – A CLINICAL STUDY