evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

6 questions · 9 findings · 2 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 33.3%Very low 1 · 11.1%Low 5 · 55.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

In the fully within-person analysis, visual classification had a summary sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CrI 0.73, 0.89); ungraded.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluorescence-based devices vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Fluorescence-based devices had a summary sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CrI 0.68, 0.82) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

2 findings from 1 review

Electrical conductance or impedance vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Electrical conductance or impedance had a summary sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CrI 0.66, 0.92) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review

Imaging (analog or digital radiographs) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

In the fully within-person analysis, radiographic imaging had a summary sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.35, 0.62); ungraded.

2 findings from 1 review

Transillumination and OCT vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Transillumination and OCT had a summary sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CrI 0.63, 0.86) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    SoF findings (HSROC; no summary operating point reported): 'ECM: sensitivity from 0.61 to 0.98 ... CarieScan Pro: sensitivity from 0.55 to 0.91'. Across all 7 studies (8 datasets), covering 719 tooth surfaces or sites…
    7 studies
    Very low