The two examiners classified the three diagnostic methods, respectively, and the interval between the two examinations was two weeks. All premolars and molars were examined in a darkroom using new-NIR. The teeth were fixed by plasticine, and the new-NIR was fixed on a bracket that could be adjusted up and down. Images were acquired above, and perpendicular to the region of interest (ROI), Fig.2 is the image of the part of the tooth acquired by new-NIR, and the caries part is in the red area. After the examination by new-NIR, the image information was acquired in a darkroom environment with DIAGNOcam and stored using KID software (Kavo Integrated Desktop, Kavo, Germany), Fig.3 shows the image of the part of the tooth taken by DIAGNOcam, and the caries part is in the red area.
Table.2 shows the cross-table for the visual inspection method for examiner 1 and examiner 2. Table.3 shows the cross-table for the first examination and the second examination in the visual inspection method. After calculation, the results were as follows: Between the two assessments of Examiner 1, the Kappa value was 0.939, and between Examiner 2, the Kappa value was 0.940. The Kappa values were higher than 0.9, demonstrating the accuracy of the examiners' internal evaluation. The Kappa value between the two examiners was 0.970 during the initial inspection and 0.848 during the subsequent inspection. Naturally, the Kappa values were higher than 0.8, demonstrating the reliability of the evaluation between the examiners.
According to the classification method of the above-mentioned visual inspection, the reliability test of new-NIR and DIAGNOcam was evaluated. The Kappa value calculation of the obtained data and the results of the visual inspection are shown in Table.4. The k-values of the assessment results between and within the examiners were > 0.81, indicating that the evaluation results within and between examiners are reliable, and the time interval has no significant effect on the reproducibility within the examiner.
Table.2 Cross table for visual inspection for examiner 1 and examiner 2
|
Visual inspection 1
|
Examiner 1
|
Total
|
Examiner 2
|
Total
|
D0
|
D1
|
D2
|
|
D0
|
D1
|
D2
|
|
Visual inspection 2
|
D0
|
23
|
1
|
0
|
24
|
24
|
2
|
0
|
26
|
D1
|
0
|
22
|
1
|
23
|
0
|
20
|
0
|
20
|
D2
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
7
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
8
|
Total
|
|
23
|
23
|
8
|
|
24
|
22
|
8
|
|
Table.3 Cross table for the first examination and the second examination of examiner 1in the visual inspection method
|
Examiner 1
|
Visual inspection 1
|
Total
|
Visual inspection 2
|
Total
|
D0
|
D1
|
D2
|
|
D0
|
D1
|
D2
|
|
Examiner 1
|
D0
|
23
|
1
|
0
|
24
|
23
|
3
|
0
|
26
|
D1
|
0
|
22
|
0
|
22
|
1
|
19
|
0
|
20
|
D2
|
0
|
0
|
8
|
8
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
8
|
Total
|
|
23
|
23
|
8
|
|
23
|
24
|
7
|
|
Table.4 Consistency within and between inspectors
Kappa
|
Checks internal consistency
|
Consistency between examiner
|
Inspector 1
|
Inspector 2
|
First check
|
Second check
|
Visual inspection
|
0.939
|
0.940
|
0.970
|
0.848
|
DIAGNOcam
|
0.940
|
0.911
|
0.941
|
0.910
|
New-NIR
|
0969
|
0.878
|
0.908
|
0.817
|
The evaluation of Kappa values shows that its reliability is high, indicating that its evaluation results are accurate. Therefore, Table.5 shows the cross table for the diagnostic results (D0, D1, D2) of 54 ROI after combining the results of 2 examiners and 2 examinations. In the table, the new-NIR and DIAGNOcam evaluations were compared with the visual inspection evaluation, and their distribution was displayed, and the visual inspection verification of 54 ROI showed 23 intact surfaces, accounting for 42.6%; There were 23 cases of external caries in enamel, accounting for 42.6%, and 8 cases of internal caries in enamel, accounting for 14.8%. The overall agreement between new-NIR and visual inspection was 75.9%. 16.7% of new-NIR underestimated the severity of caries lesions, and 7.4% overestimated the severity of caries lesions. The overall agreement between DIAGNOcam and visual inspection was 83.3%, with 9.3% underestimating the severity of caries lesions and 7.4% overestimating the severity of caries lesions.
Table.5 Cross table for 54 ROI of visual inspection and new-NIR, DIAGNOcam
|
New-NIR
|
DIAGNOcam
|
Total
|
D0
|
D1
|
D2
|
D0
|
D1
|
D2
|
Visual examination
|
D0
|
20
|
3
|
0
|
21
|
2
|
0
|
23
|
D1
|
6
|
16
|
1
|
4
|
17
|
2
|
23
|
D2
|
0
|
3
|
5
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
8
|
Total
|
|
26
|
22
|
6
|
25
|
20
|
9
|
|
According to Table.5, the test results of new-NIR and DIAGNOcam were compared with the visual inspection (gold standard), and the Spearman correlation analysis was performed, and the significance between the two pairs was <0.01, indicating that the correlation coefficient between the two pairs was reliable (statistically significant). The diagnostic results of DIAGNOcam were strongly correlated with the results of visual inspection with a correlation coefficient of 0.831, while the correlation between new-NIR and visual inspection was slightly lower at 0.741. The results showed that the caries detection effect of new-NIR and DIAGNOcam was better, but compared with the diagnosis results of new-NIR, the diagnostic results of DIAGNOcam were more correlated with the visual inspection method.
To compare the results of new-NIR with DIAGNOcam in correctly diagnosing the degree of caries, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the two methods were calculated, respectively. Comparing the difference of 54 ROI in the diagnosis of new-NIR. It was calculated to have a sensitivity of 0.806, a specificity of 0.870, and an accuracy of 0.833. Secondly, comparing the differences of 54 ROI in the diagnosis of DIAGNOcam. It was calculated to have a sensitivity of 0.871, specificity of 0.913, and accuracy of 0.889, as shown in Table.6. The results showed that the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of new-NIR were > 0.8, indicating that the NIR reflection was very accurate in detecting healthy teeth and decayed teeth.
Table.6 Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of new-NIR and DIAGNOcam
|
Sensitivity
|
Specificity
|
Accuracy
|
New-NIR
|
0.806
|
0.870
|
0.833
|
DIAGNOcam
|
0.871
|
0.913
|
0.889
|