evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

6 questions · 24 findings · 2 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 24 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.83 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) 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)

Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15, 0.93) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

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)

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.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) 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)

Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.91 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) 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 in vitro, laser fluorescence pen (2190) pooled specificity was 0.77 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.88) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, laser fluorescence pen (2190) pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94) for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding