Comparison of the effectiveness of intraoral scanners with imaging studies in the detection of dental caries has very little research. However, after comparing the two methods for detecting and classifying occlusal caries, the researchers concluded that the use of a 3D intraoral scanner is as valuable as visual clinical examination and may be particularly useful for remote assessment and research.
Primary results show that by using an intraoral scanner, clinicians can avoid common mistakes associated with visual inspection and associated 2D dental photographs. The quality of standard dental images can be significantly affected by the lack of suitable lighting and magnification, as well as the angle at which the image was taken. Non-carious lesions, excess saliva, and plaque can be additional barriers to detecting occlusal caries. Reaching certain patient groups may require long journeys to get to an appointment, and this can make it difficult for clinicians to conduct adequate oral examinations.
The researchers used both methodologies to evaluate three surfaces of more than 50 permanent posterior teeth before and after extraction. Prior to extraction, each tooth was subjected to plaque removal and assessed in a standard clinical imaging examination in addition to an intraoral scan. After six months, the models were assessed for color and fluorescence and received histological assessment of enamel and dentine demineralization depending on thickness. No significant differences were found between the caries detection capabilities of the two methods.
Researchers suggest that the lack of existing literature is the reason why some clinicians are hesitant about using an intraoral scanner to detect caries. They also noted the importance of further exploration of additional caries detection methods using the intraoral scanner, including fluorescence using blue light excitation for early enamel demineralization and caries detection, transillumination, and near-infrared reflection.
It has also been suggested that intraoral scanners provide clinicians with easily portable data useful for comparison, and that they are therefore a viable alternative to standard imaging, especially for clinicians with hard-to-reach patient populations.