Cariogenic biofilms produce porphyrins that fluoresce red under violet light (about 405 nm), while sound enamel appears green, which is why QLF can map early demineralization and even quantify plaque response after a standardized 10% sucrose rinse. Who’s using chairside fluorescence to decide between sealing a suspicious fissure versus short-interval monitoring?
And qLF at 405 nm is great, but , the red from plaque after a ‘10% sucrose rinse’ can make fissures look worse than they are. I do a quick prophy + air-dry, then rescan; if the red drops and ΔF stays > −5% with clean bitewings, I monitor 3 months, otherwise I seal. Anyone using a specific ΔR/ΔF cutoff for occlusals?
, under 405 nm the red can scream “treat me” after a “10% sucrose rinse”; I keep a fixed spacer (about 10 mm) and 5–7 s air-dry, then decide off ΔF for enamel and only consider ΔR if it survives a quick polish. If I’m still on the fence, I seal only when ΔF > 5% with a matching bitewing shadow; otherwise it’s 3–4 month review. Anyone using a stricter ΔF cutoff for fissures?
Building on @claraB88, try a color‑coded weekly pass for pre‑verified regulars and station a para at the door with a tablet to pre‑check IDs against a preloaded pickup roster; anyone without ID steps to a small side “exceptions” desk so the main queue keeps moving — TSA PreCheck vibes… Do you have a spare iPad to run Raptor/QuickScan at the threshold?
Pair QLF with NIRI as a tie‑breaker — if there’s no NIR shadow and the percent loss is mild, I seal; a clear shadow gets short‑interval review. I also blunt the “sucrose rinse” boost by waiting a couple minutes and rescanning with identical exposure; the “sound enamel looks green” baseline is a lot truer then. In ops that combo has saved me from overtreating twice this month.