evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3 questions · 12 findings · 1 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 12 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2095) 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 (DIAGNOdent 2095) pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.81 for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2095) 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, 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
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