Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant difference vs histological for LF at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.62, 0.15 to 2.46).
2 findings from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR, sROC AUC) similar among LF, LFpen and FC; heterogeneity I2=65%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR, sROC AUC) similar among LF, LFpen and FC. Heterogeneity I2=65%.…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); pooled DOR higher for LF (and FC) than for LFpen. Heterogeneity I2=77%. Numeric pooled values not available in the…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, initial, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
LF performed significantly better with other reference standards than with histological validation at the initial threshold (RDOR 4.13, 1.24 to 13.76).
2 findings from 1 review
Relative DOR by setting (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
For LF on occlusal permanent teeth (advanced threshold), laboratory studies had significantly lower diagnostic accuracy than clinical studies (RDOR 0.28, 0.12 to 0.66).
2 findings from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR lowest for LF among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=23%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); pooled DOR lowest for LF among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=23%. Numeric pooled values not available in the…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); accuracy similar among LF, LFpen and FC. Heterogeneity I2=75%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent and primary teeth, smooth surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Only 2 LF studies assessed smooth surfaces, so no pooled estimate was possible; both reported higher specificity than sensitivity (evidence not graded).
1 finding from 1 review
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 (DIAGNOdent 2095) pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.81 for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.
4 findings from 1 review
AUC 0.81
6 studies
GRADE not reported
Sensitivity 0.75 [0.58, 0.86]
6 studies
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.76 [0.60, 0.87]
6 studies
GRADE not reported
Show 1 more finding
DOR 10.28 [4.35, 24.28]
6 studies
GRADE not reported
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 (DIAGNOdent 2095) pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.79 for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.
4 findings from 1 review
AUC 0.79
7 studies
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.78 [0.68, 0.85]
7 studies
GRADE not reported
Sensitivity 0.68 [0.54, 0.79]
7 studies
GRADE not reported
Show 1 more finding
DOR 8.01 [4.04, 15.88]
7 studies
GRADE not reported
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 in vivo, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2095) pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 18.33 (95% CI 7.57 to 44.37) for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.
4 findings from 1 review
DOR 18.33 [7.57, 44.37]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Sensitivity 0.88 [0.81, 0.93]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.71 [0.55, 0.83]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Show 1 more finding
AUC 0.88
1 study
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces
In in vivo, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2095) pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.92 for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.
4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Pen-type laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR for LFpen lower than for LF and FC; heterogeneity I2=73%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); pooled DOR for LFpen lower than for LF and FC. Heterogeneity I2=73%. Numeric pooled values not available in the…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); accuracy similar among LF, LFpen and FC. Heterogeneity I2=54%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, initial, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the initial threshold (RDOR 4.41, 0.19 to 103.92).
1 finding from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Pen-type laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR intermediate for LFpen among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=31%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); pooled DOR intermediate for LFpen among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=31%. Numeric pooled values not available…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); accuracy similar among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=0%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of permanent teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): LFpen showed similar values at both thresholds; heterogeneity I2=84%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 8); LFpen showed similar values at both thresholds. Heterogeneity I2=84%. Numeric pooled values not available in the…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 8); only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool; similar values at both thresholds. Heterogeneity I2=93%. Numeric pooled…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Relative DOR by setting (LFpen, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant setting difference for LFpen (RDOR 0.35, 0.04 to 2.99).
2 findings from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of primary teeth (initial-lesion threshold): only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool; heterogeneity I2=84%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 8); only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool. Heterogeneity I2=84%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 8); LFpen showed higher pooled DOR at the more advanced threshold. Heterogeneity I2=89%. Numeric pooled values not…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.96, 0.12 to 7.77).
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
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