Comparison between intraoral scanning and direct visual analysis for the assessment of developmental defects of...

To compare direct visual analysis (DVA) and intraoral scanning (IOS) for the assessment of developmental defects of the enamel (DDE).

Thirty-nine extracted permanent human teeth with DDE were selected by an experienced examiner and digitised using IOS. The scanning was recorded using the OBS Studio software parallel to the IOS software to obtain a coloured high-definition MP4 file of the process. Two other experienced, blinded, and calibrated examiners randomly analysed the same teeth through DVA and IOS. A third examiner resolved any disagreements between the two examiners. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the frequencies of the scores. Cohen's kappa test was used to determine whether the DVA scores were different from those assigned using IOS. Spearman's test was used to verify non-random examiner errors. The Chi-square test was used to compare score frequencies. Statistical significance was set at p <0.05.

Scores indicating more severe and extended DDE (p <0.05) were more frequently assigned with IOS than with DVA (IOS: 25.64%, 25.64%, 38.46%, and 35.90% between one-third to two-third of the lingual, occlusal, mesial, and distal surfaces, respectively; vs. DVA: 10.26%, 7.69%, 15.38%, and 10.26% for the respective aforementioned tooth surfaces). Contrarily, 'no visible enamel defect' was significantly less assigned for IOS than for DVA (IOS: 15.38%, 43.59%, 35.90%, 15.38%, and 17.95% for buccal, lingual, occlusal, mesial, and distal surfaces, respectively; vs. DVA: 38.46%, 66.67%, 56.41%, 51.28%, and 43.59% for the respective aforementioned tooth surfaces). Kappa agreement ranged from fair to moderate when comparing DVA and IOS; the correlation between both methods was positive, indicating that the examiners assigned the scores properly and the differences arose from employing different methods.

The assessment of DDE differed depending on the method used. IOS scores indicated more severe and extended DDE than DVA scores. Clinical investigation is the next step in validating the use of IOS for DDE diagnosis.

This study showed that DDE can be assessed differently using IOS. It is clinically relevant as it directly affects the determination of the severity of the defect and dental treatment planning.