evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2 questions · 5 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology; some ICDAS/radiography)

Occlusal caries detection: sensitivity · Extracted human teeth (in vitro); permanent and primary teeth, occlusal surfaces

In vitro, QLF pooled sensitivity for occlusal caries detection was 0.83 (5 studies; ungraded).

3 findings from 1 review

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (bitewing radiography, ADA classification, ICDAS II)

Occlusal caries detection: sensitivity · Patients (in vivo); permanent and primary teeth, occlusal surfaces

In vivo, QLF pooled sensitivity for occlusal caries detection was 0.86 (4 studies; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review