Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 2;2020:8825890. doi: 10.1155/2020/8825890

Table 2.

Frequency of use of caries detection methods.

Method Never or rarely (0–9%) Sometimes (10–49%) Often (50–74%) Most of the time (75–99%) Always (100%)
P1-use of sharp explorer 35 (7.06%)a 29 (5.85%)a 60 (12.1%)a 162 (32.7%)b 210 (42.3%)b
P2-use of explorer that is not sharp 243 (49.0%)a 90 (18.1%)b 44 (8.87%)b 60 (12.1%)b 59 (11.9%)b
P3-magnification (e.g., loupes) 298 (60.1%)a 64 (12.9%)b 48 (9.68%)b 47 (9.48%)b 39 (7.86%)b
P4-ECM (electrical caries monitor) 385 (77.6%)a 35 (7.06%)b 23 (4.64%)b 29 (5.85%)b 24 (4.84%)b
P5-QLF (quantitate light-induced fluorescence) 374 (75.4%)a 39 (7.86%)b 30 (6.05%)b 29 (5.85%)b 24 (4.84%)b
P6-IRLF (infrared laser fluorescence) 388 (78.2%)a 33 (6.65%)b 25 (5.04%)b 32 (6.45%)b 18 (3.63%)b
P7-FOTI (fiber-optic transillumination) 338 (68.1%)a 60 (12.1%)b 38 (7.66%)b 40 (8.06%)b 20 (4.03%)b
P8-compressed air drying with illumination 124 (25.0%)a 67 (13.5%)a 79 (15.9%)a 103 (20.8%)a 123 (24.8%)a

a,bValues in the same row and subtable not sharing the same subscript are significantly different at P < 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column proportions. Cells with no subscript are not included in the test. Tests assume equal variances. Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row of each innermost subtables using the Bonferroni correction.