evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2 questions · 2 findings · 2 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Sensitivity · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

AI algorithms have high pooled sensitivity (0.85) for detecting dental caries; ungraded, with very high heterogeneity (I2>95%) and evidence of publication bias.

1 finding from 1 review

Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination

Sensitivity · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment

Across 13 studies, the sensitivity of teledentistry (photographic) caries diagnosis versus visual examination ranged from 48% to 98.3%; the review pooled no estimate and did not grade certainty.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Teledentistry accuracy for caries diagnosis: a systematic review of in-vivo studies using extra-oral photography… 2024 All outcomes
    Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy (index test vs reference standard, in-vivo) · In-vivo: dental clinics/hospitals, schools, and a juvenile detention facility (11 countries) · Overall (studies reporting sensitivity; narrative synthesis)
    Sensitivity Overall 48% to 98.3% across 13 studies; sensitivity is lesion-stage dependent: Kohara reported <40% for initial/moderate caries (75-100% for extensive) and early enamel lesions were less sensitive
    13 studies
    GRADE not reported