Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

27 questions · 67 findings · 5 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 65 · 97%Very low 2 · 3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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 Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 22 / Figure 23; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 34 datasets, 6842 tooth sites.
    32 studies
    GRADE not reported

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

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard: histology (in vitro studies) or visual-tactile examination (in vivo studies)

Specificity · Adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of having root caries (in vivo studies); extracted teeth of adults (in vitro studies). 2…
1 finding from 1 review
  • 4 studies (4997 root surfaces) investigated laser fluorescence and reported estimates of sensitivity ranging from 0.50 to 0.81 and specificity ranging from 0.40 to 0.80. 2 studies evaluated tests on in vivo primary…
    4 studies
    Very low

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard: histology (in vitro studies) or visual-tactile examination (in vivo studies)

Sensitivity · Adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of having root caries (in vivo studies); extracted teeth of adults (in vitro studies). 2…
1 finding from 1 review
  • 4 studies (4997 root surfaces) investigated laser fluorescence and reported estimates of sensitivity ranging from 0.50 to 0.81 and specificity ranging from 0.40 to 0.80. 2 studies evaluated tests on in vivo primary…
    4 studies
    Very low