Question · asked by 1 review
Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (direct within-person / paired comparison); reference standard: histology: Diagnostic accuracy: analogue versus CBCT (within-person, not pooled)
- Population
- Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies); teeth apparently healthy or with suspected early caries. Studies intentionally including caries obviously into dentine or frank cavitation, or participants referred to secondary care for restorative treatment, were excluded. Target condition: early (non-cavitated enamel-only) coronal dental caries on occlusal, approximal, or smooth surfaces
- Intervention
- Analogue (conventional) radiographs
- Comparison
- Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (direct within-person / paired comparison); reference standard: histology
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy: analogue versus CBCT (within-person, not pooled)
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) (direct within-person / paired comparison); reference standard: histology Diagnostic accuracy: analogue versus CBCT (within-person, not pooled) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted… · Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries (2021) · Cochrane All outcomes | Direct comparison analogue vs CBCT (within-person): 6 datasets from 3 studies (737 tooth sites or surfaces) provided data, but the results could not be pooled; only individual study results are shown (Figure 21). No… | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2018-12 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.