PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance of the LOGICON Caries Detector using RVG-4 and RVG-ui sensors, by comparing results of each detector to the results of clinical and histological examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pairs of extracted teeth were radiographed, and a total of 57 proximal surfaces, which included both carious and non-carious situations, were analyzed. The RVG-4 produced 8-bit images, while the RVG-ui unit produced 12-bit images, which were taken in the high sensitivity mode. The images produced by the LOGICON were evaluated by a trained observer using both automated and manual caries detection software modes. Ground sections of the teeth established the actual absence or existence of caries. RESULTS: LOGICON-aided caries detection and depth discrimination of the RVG-4 and RVG-ui sensors were equally inconsistent irrespective of whether the LOGICON software was set to the automated or manual mode. Sensitivity ranged from 50% to 57% for caries penetration of the enamel-dentin junction. CONCLUSION: Care needs to be taken when using LOGICON in conjunction with RVG images as an adjunct for treatment planning dental caries. Even when applied by a trained observer, substantial discrepancies exist between the results of the LOGICON software-guided evalutations using RVG images and histologic examination.
Dental Caries ; Diagnosis* ; Discrimination (Psychology) ; Tooth

<p>AIMIt is our opinion that the CDC and the WHO have underestimated cross-contamination under examination gloves in dental clinics while wearing jewelry, such as finger rings. These agencies only "recommend" removing jewelry, and only washing hands for 15 seconds with soap and warm water before donning gloves. This study examined several washing procedures and finger rings using simulated microbes.p><p>METHODOLOGYA gloved rubber hand manikin was made and fitted with a fresh disposable vinyl glove. Four fingers were fitted with rings or no ring, dusted with simulated microbes, and washed with a scrub brush for 5, 15, and 25 seconds under 20 degrees C and 40 degrees C water alone, or with liquid hand soap. Light levels (in lux) of fluorescent powder before and after washing were measured and delta scores calculated for changes in light levels, equivalent to effectiveness of hand washing procedures. A full-factorial, 3-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences among levels of the three study factors-time, temperature, and soap use. Tukey's post hoc honestly significant difference (HSD) test was applied to significant factors to examine pair-wise differences between factor levels.p><p>RESULTSIt was found that the longer the hands with rings were washed with a scrub brush under flowing water, the more simulated microbes were removed. By 25 seconds, all methods were essentially the same. Simulated microbes were more difficult to remove from the palm compared to the back of the hand. The liquid hand soap used in this study was more effective with warm water than cold. When given a choice of washing with cold water up to 15 seconds, it would be preferable not to use soap to remove simulated microbes. Qualitatively, the outer surface of finger rings were more effectively cleaned than the crevice below the ring, and the ring with a stone setting appeared to accumulate and retain simulated microbes more than other rings.p><p>CONCLUSIONThe most effective treatment was washing with warm water and liquid soap. Longer times were more effective. Rings should not be worn under examination gloves due to difficulty cleaning in the crevice under the ring, and the well-known consequences of cross-contamination between the patient and the health care worker.p>
Colony Count, Microbial ; Fingers ; microbiology ; Fluorescent Dyes ; Hand ; anatomy & histology ; microbiology ; Hand Disinfection ; methods ; Humans ; Jewelry ; microbiology ; Manikins ; Soaps ; therapeutic use ; Temperature ; Time Factors ; Water