Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

No significant difference vs histological for LF at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.62, 0.15 to 2.46).

2 findings from 1 review

Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomes
More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Meta-regression across reference-standard types · Other reference standard vs histological (reference)
RDOR 0.62 [0.15, 2.46]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomes
More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Meta-regression across reference-standard types · Operative intervention vs histological (reference)
RDOR 3.01 [1.26, 7.20]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.96, 0.12 to 7.77).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomes
More advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Meta-regression across reference-standard types · Operative intervention vs histological (reference)
RDOR 0.96 [0.12, 7.77]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported