Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

20 questions · 52 findings · 7 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 1 · 1.9%GRADE not reported 45 · 86.5%Very low 4 · 7.7%Low 2 · 3.8%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Visual examination (VE) vs Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation)

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, visual examination pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.70 for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) 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, visual examination pooled sensitivity was 0.46 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.73) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) 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, visual examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.42, 0.81) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76, 0.89) for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) vs Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin caries detection level (Ekstrand; D0-2 versus D3-4) · Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vivo, visual examination pooled specificity was 0.77 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.85) for occlusal caries at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin caries detection level (Ekstrand; D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, visual examination pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 16.6 (95% CI 4.85 to 56.79) for occlusal caries at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) 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, visual examination pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.59 for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) 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, visual examination had a pooled specificity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.11, 0.99) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) 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, visual examination had a summary ROC AUC of 0.85 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Specificity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Sensitivity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

Combined index test: visual examination + radiograph + DIAGNOdent (Alomari 2015) vs Reference standard: histology

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Combined index test: visual examination + radiograph + DIAGNOdent (Alomari 2015) vs Reference standard: histology

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Transillumination/OCT device used as an adjunct to a conventional visual examination vs Reference standard: histology, or enhanced visual examination with or without radiographs (also operative excavation, tooth separation, or microcomputed tomography)

Outcome not reported · Children or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of having enamel caries (clinical/in vivo studies); extracted teeth of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Colour clinical examination (visual shade categorization: yellow, light brown, dark brown, black) vs Hardness clinical examination (tactile texture categorization: soft, medium/leathery, hard)

Discriminant power for caries severity: effect size (f) for microbial load (log10 CFU) between lesion categories · Patients with dentine carious lesions (deciduous/permanent teeth; children and adults)

The weighted effect size favoured hardness (f=2.62) over colour (f=0.46) for discriminating microbial load, supporting hardness as the more reliable examination (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Colour clinical examination (visual shade categorization: yellow, light brown, dark brown, black) vs Hardness clinical examination (tactile texture categorization: soft, medium/leathery, hard)

Discriminant power for caries severity: mean difference in log10 CFU (microbial load) between lesion categories · Patients with dentine carious lesions (deciduous/permanent teeth; children and adults)

For yellow-vs-other colour compared with soft-vs-harder hardness, hardness was significantly the more discriminant test (pooled WMD -3.87, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.87; ungraded).

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings