Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 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)

Proximal caries detection: sensitivity · Extracted human teeth (in vitro); permanent teeth, proximal (approximal) surfaces

In vitro, QLF pooled sensitivity for proximal caries detection was 0.83 (3 permanent-teeth studies; no primary-dentition data; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and locations: a… 2025 All outcomes
In vitro (laboratory) · Overall (all studies permanent)
Sensitivity 0.83
3 studies
GRADE not reported

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

Proximal caries detection: sensitivity · Patients (in vivo); permanent and primary teeth, proximal (approximal) surfaces

In vivo, QLF pooled sensitivity for proximal caries detection was 0.74 (4 studies; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and locations: a… 2025 All outcomes
In vivo (clinical) · Overall (all dentition)
Sensitivity 0.74
4 studies
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and locations: a… 2025 All outcomes
In vivo (clinical) · Permanent dentition
Sensitivity 0.76
3 studies
GRADE not reported