Question · asked by 1 review
Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard): Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level)
- Population
- Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
- Intervention
- Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film)
- Comparison
- Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level)
Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.28, 0.57) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded.
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Conventional bitewing radiography, E-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · In vitro (laboratory; extracted teeth); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.28, 0.57) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | Sensitivity 0.42 [0.28, 0.57] | 9 studies | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography, E-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · In vitro (laboratory; extracted teeth); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84, 0.93) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | Specificity 0.90 [0.84, 0.93] | 9 studies | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography, E-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · In vitro (laboratory; extracted teeth); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.82 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | AUC 0.82 | 9 studies | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography, E-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · In vitro (laboratory; extracted teeth); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 6.80 (95% CI 4.58, 10.10) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | DOR 6.80 [4.58, 10.10] | 9 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. 2021 All outcomes | Up to 31 December 2018 (English-language publications) | 36 | Not applicable |
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.