Conventional bitewing radiography, F-speed film vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography): Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4)
In in vitro, conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed) pooled specificity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.998) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed film) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography) Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces · in vitro In in vitro, conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed) pooled specificity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.998) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | Specificity 0.97 [0.71, 0.998] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed film) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography) Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces · in vitro In in vitro, conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed) pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 23.60 (95% CI 8.28 to 67.24) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | DOR 23.60 [8.28, 67.24] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed film) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography) Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces · in vitro In in vitro, conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed) pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.82 for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | AUC 0.82 | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed film) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography) Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces · in vitro In in vitro, conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed) pooled sensitivity was 0.50 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.79) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. (2021) All outcomes | Sensitivity 0.50 [0.22, 0.79] | 2 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 methods for occlusal surface caries. 2021 All outcomes | 31 December 2018 | 73 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.