Knowledge and Use of Caries Detection Methods among Dental Students and Dental Practitioners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

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 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.