Question · asked by 1 review
Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation: Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level)
- Population
- Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)
- Intervention
- Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen)
- Comparison
- Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level)
Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.96 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · In vivo (clinical); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.96 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 0.96 | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · In vivo (clinical); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled sensitivity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.82, 0.96) 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 0.92 [0.82, 0.96] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · In vivo (clinical); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 99 (95% CI 22.01, 445.30) 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 99 [22.01, 445.30] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo) · In vivo (clinical); permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces, Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.73, 0.97) 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 [0.73, 0.97] | 1 study | 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 |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro) · 1 review
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.