Comparative evaluation and patient satisfaction with an electrical impedance-based device versus digital radiography in the estimation of remaining dentin thickness in carious posterior permanent teeth: (Diagnostic accuracy study)
Comparative evaluation and patient satisfaction with an electrical impedance-based device versus digital radiography in the estimation of remaining dentin thickness in carious posterior permanent teeth: (Diagnostic accuracy study)

Comparative evaluation and patient satisfaction with an electrical impedance-based device versus digital radiography in the estimation of remaining dentin thickness in carious posterior permanent teeth: (Diagnostic accuracy study)

BMC Oral Health. 2024 Apr 8;24(1):429. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04205-w.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of remaining dentin thickness (RDT) is paramount for restorative decisions and treatment planning of vital teeth to avoid any pulpal injury. This diagnostic accuracy study compared the validity and patient satisfaction of an electrical impedance based device Prepometer™ (Hager & Werken, Duisburg, Germany) versus intraoral digital radiography for the estimation of remaining dentin thickness in carious posterior permanent teeth.

METHODS: Seventy patients aged 12-25 years with carious occlusal or proximal permanent vital posterior teeth were recruited. Tooth preparation was performed to receive an adhesive restoration. Pre- and post-excavation RDT were measured radiographically by two calibrated raters using the paralleling periapical technique. Prepometer™ measurements were performed by the operator. Patients rated their satisfaction level with each tool on a 4-point Likert scale and 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). Inter and intragroup comparisons were analyzed using signed rank test, while agreement between devices and observations was tested using weight kappa (WK) coefficient.

RESULTS: the intergroup comparisons showed that, before and after excavation, there was a significant difference between measurements made by both techniques (p < 0.001). After excavation, there was a weak agreement between measurements (WK = 0.2, p < 0.001), whereas before excavation, the agreement was not statistically significant (p = 0.407). Patients were significantly more satisfied with Prepometer™ based on scales and VAS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Prepometer™ could be a viable clinical tool for determining RDT with high patient satisfaction, while radiographs tended to overestimate RDT in relation to the Prepometer™.

PMID:38584280 | DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-04205-w