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.