There are several lights on the market right now, and others soon to enter it. I was a consultant to Zila Pharmaceuticals in 2000 when they acquired the rights to the tissue reflectance idea/device they branded Vizilite. There is also a device which is based on tissue fluorescence called the VELscope. I have worked with the parent company of that device as well. Bottom line, I wouldn't pick a dentist to do a screening just because he uses an adjunctive device (neither of which is selective nor specific for cancer), but because he knows how to do a proper eyeball and wet finger screening. The ADA will not be approving the Vizilite as they are no longer putting their seal of approval on professional devices. (Long story, but suffice it to say this hasn't worked well for them), their endorsements don't mean much anyway. Both these devices are FDA 510k approved, which is not a huge testament to them, it just means they are significantly equivalent to a device that existed in the marketplace before 1972. They had to prove nothing more. The preexisting device that I used when working on the submission outline was a vaginal speculum, essentially a flashlight on a stick. I would not call that the height of technological advancement.... And with Zila's stock now at somewhere around 25 cents, down from $8.00, the company is actually fighting for survival. Ironically the preexisting device for the VELscope is the Vizilite, even though the technology is significantly more sophisticated. Bottom line they are NOT diagnostic devices, they are only designed to find suspect tissue, and they find everything from pizza burns, cheek bites, and lichen planus, to cancer. They do not distinguish which is which. I just gave a presentation at a research conference in Chicago on all the adjunctive devices used in screening. If you want to know more, I can help you understand this, but to patients it doesn't mean much.