Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 2 findings · 2 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

AI algorithms have high pooled specificity (0.90) for detecting dental caries; ungraded, with very high heterogeneity (I2>95%).

1 finding from 1 review

Examining the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence for detecting dental caries across a range of imaging… 2025 All outcomes
Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy (index test vs reference standard) · Dental imaging: intraoral photographs, periapical, bitewing, panoramic radiographs, CBCT, near-infrared transillumination · Overall (all imaging modalities pooled)
Specificity 0.90 [0.85, 0.95]
20 studies · 29423 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Across 13 studies, the specificity of teledentistry caries diagnosis ranged from 83% to 100%; no pooled estimate and certainty not graded.

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 specificity; narrative synthesis)
Specificity ranged from 83% to 100% across studies (reported in 13 of 19 studies). No pooled estimate; meta-analysis not performed.
13 studies
GRADE not reported