Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance of quadrant-focused (half-jaw) versus full-arch QLF imaging with QrayCam Pro for occlusal caries detection against a combined ICDAS+bitewing reference. Materials and Methods: Forty-five adults (mean age 25. 1 years) each contributed one occlusal surface (sound or carious). Each surface was imaged under two protocols: quadrant-focused and full-arch. Q-ray Clinical software yielded ΔFₘax (green fluorescence loss), ΔRₘax (red fluorescence change), and QS scores. Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, area under the ROC curve AUC) was calculated versus the reference standard; protocol differences were assessed with MANOVA. Results: Both protocols showed high performance. For ΔRₘax, both achieved AUC = 1. 000 with 100% sensitivity and specificity. For ΔFₘax, quadrant imaging achieved AUC = 1. 000; full-arch had AUC = 0. 993 (sensitivity 92. 3%, specificity 94. 7%). MANOVA found no significant overall difference between protocols (p = 0. 790). Quadrant imaging tended to identify early enamel lesions more often. Conclusions: Quadrant-focused QLF imaging offers a small sensitivity advantage for incipient lesions while maintaining high specificity; full-arch imaging remains efficient for screening and documentation. Protocol choice can be tailored to early-lesion detection needs and AI-based analysis workflows.
Bittar et al. (Wed,) studied this question.