Evidence Gaps

What do systematic reviews say?

1 questions · 4 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. 2021 All outcomes
in vitro
Sensitivity 0.78 [0.44, 0.94]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. 2021 All outcomes
in vitro
AUC 0.77
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. 2021 All outcomes
in vitro
DOR 11.83 [2.66, 52.63]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

Show 1 more finding

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic methods for occlusal surface caries. 2021 All outcomes
in vitro
Specificity 0.77 [0.62, 0.87]
2 studies
GRADE not reported