A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1057
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3175
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

In vivo comparison of initial caries lesions using the enamel decalcification index and quantitative light-induced fluorescence measurement during orthodontic therapy. | LitMetric

Objectives: To compare two quantitative assessment methods - visual-tactile examination and fluorescence measurement - for detecting of initial caries lesions in adolescents undergoing treatment with a multibracket appliance (MB).

Materials And Methods: This study included 28 subjects (14 males, 14 females), treated with MB in both the maxilla and mandible. Data collection occurred at three times points: prior to treatment (T0), six months after MB insertion (T1), and one year post-insertion (T2). The Enamel Decalcification Index (EDI; 0-3 scale) and quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) were employed for assessment.

Results: At T0, four subjects (14%) exhibited no lesions, while only two (7%) remained lesion-free at T1, and again at T2. The kappa coefficient for agreement between the two diagnostic methods across all time points was 0.71.

Conclusions: Both the QLF and EDI methods yielded similar results, with only minor discrepancies. To determine the most appropriate method for each individual case, considerations of cost, benefit and time should be made.

Clinical Relevance: The similarity in outcomes for the QLF and EDI methods indicates that both diagnostic methods are effective and reliable. However, QLF may be prone to interference, which must be accounted for during its application.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-025-06234-3DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

initial caries
8
caries lesions
8
enamel decalcification
8
quantitative light-induced
8
light-induced fluorescence
8
fluorescence measurement
8
diagnostic methods
8
qlf edi
8
edi methods
8
methods
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!