Question · asked by 1 review

Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation: Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level)

Population
Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)
Intervention
Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP)
Comparison
Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Outcome
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level)

Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.20, 0.90) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · In vivo (clinical); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Dentin detection level
Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.20, 0.90) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes
Specificity 0.60 [0.20, 0.90]1 studyGRADE not reported
Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · In vivo (clinical); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Dentin detection level
Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.77, 0.88) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes
Sensitivity 0.83 [0.77, 0.88]1 studyGRADE not reported
Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · In vivo (clinical); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Dentin detection level
Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.79 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes
AUC 0.791 studyGRADE not reported
Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · In vivo (clinical); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Dentin detection level
Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 7.5 (95% CI 1.19, 47.13) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes
DOR 7.5 [1.19, 47.13]1 studyGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries.
2021 All outcomes
Up to 31 December 2018 (English-language publications)36Not applicable

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.