Question · asked by 1 review
Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film) vs Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation): Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4)
- Population
- Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces
- Intervention
- Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film)
- Comparison
- Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation)
- Outcome
- Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4)
In in vivo, conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed) pooled sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.87) for occlusal caries 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 Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation) Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces · in vivo In in vivo, conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed) pooled sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.87) for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | Sensitivity 0.80 [0.71, 0.87] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film) vs Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation) Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces · in vivo In in vivo, conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed) pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 60.37 (95% CI 3.31 to 1100.70) for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | DOR 60.37 [3.31, 1100.70] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film) vs Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation) Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces · in vivo In in vivo, conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed) pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.94 for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | AUC 0.94 | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film) vs Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation) Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces · in vivo In in vivo, conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed) pooled specificity was 0.94 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.996) for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | Specificity 0.94 [0.46, 0.996] | 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 methods for occlusal surface caries. 2021 All outcomes | 31 December 2018 | 73 | 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.