It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Aim: To compare the level of diagnostic coincidence between classical (standard) method and VELscope and ViziLite Plus systems in the diagnosis of different oral lesions.
Material and methods: 184 oral lesions were examined using classical method, VELscope and ViziLite Plus systems, and after that underwent a pathohistological examination for diagnosis proof. The percentage of diagnostic coincidence for various types of lesions was analyzed for the three methods compared.
Results: The results demonstrated the highest coincidence rate for lesions diagnosed with VELscope – 35 (83.3%), followed by those with classical method – 80 (80.8%), and those with the application of ViziLite – 33 (76.7%). In premalignant and malignant lesions, the highest percentage of diagnostic coincidence was reported using the classical method – 14 (93.3%), for non-malignant lesions using VELscope – 28 (84.8%), for inflammatory and reactive lesions using VELscope – 14 (82.4%) and for lesions associated with general disease and systemic medication again using VELscope – 11 (91.7%).
Conclusion: Non-invasive methods, tested in the study, have different diagnostic properties when differentiating particular clinical types of lesions. They are highly sensitive to changes in the oral mucosa but the final diagnosis must always be proved with biopsy.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Periodontology and Oral Diseases, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University – Plovdiv, Bulgaria
2 Biomedical Analysis – Plovdiv, Bulgaria