Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

377 questions · 736 findings · 60 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 17 · 2.3%GRADE not reported 563 · 76.5%Very low 39 · 5.3%Low 47 · 6.4%Moderate 50 · 6.8%High 20 · 2.7%

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology; some ICDAS/radiography)

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

In vitro, QLF pooled specificity for proximal caries detection was 0.74 (3 permanent-teeth studies; no primary-dentition data; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

A positive AI test raises caries probability substantially (LR+ 10.44; positive post-test probability 79%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Log diagnostic odds ratio · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

AI algorithms show strong pooled discriminative accuracy for dental caries (log DOR 4.37; DOR 70.9); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

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

A negative AI test lowers caries probability substantially (LR- 0.17; negative post-test probability 6%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) dentifrice/paste (fluoride-free or fluoridated) vs nHA-free / fluoride-free (negative) control

Mineral loss (transversal microradiography) · Enamel/dentin specimens with initial caries lesions (or sound surfaces) in intraoral (in situ) appliances worn by patients

Under remineralizing conditions, nHA produced significantly more remineralization than the negative control (MD 350, 95% CI 179 to 521; very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Composite strip crown

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-5.5 years) with early childhood caries in anterior primary teeth (>=2 carious surfaces), no pulp therapy

Zirconia crowns failed less than composite strip crowns (3.3% vs 15% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride-free nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) dentifrice/paste vs Sodium fluoride (control) toothpaste

Mineral loss (transversal microradiography) · Enamel/dentin specimens with initial caries lesions (or sound surfaces) in intraoral (in situ) appliances worn by patients

Under demineralizing conditions, nHA allowed significantly more enamel demineralization than NaF (MD 1625, 95% CI 553 to 2697; very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-8 years) with 2-surface occluso-proximal dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Preformed metal (Hall) crowns had a low reported annual failure rate (3.1%) versus compomer (14.7%) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-based fissure sealant vs Fluoride varnish

Caries incidence of first permanent molars (FPMs) · Schoolchildren aged 6-12 years with sound occlusal surfaces of the first permanent molars

Pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish showed no statistically significant difference in caries incidence of first permanent molars at 24 months (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.38; I2=89%; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
17 findings from 1 review
Show 14 more findings

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
3 findings 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 · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
2 findings 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) · Permanent dentition
    Permanent dentition (4 studies): sensitivity ranged from 0.55 to 0.65.
    4 studies
    GRADE not reported
  • 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) · Primary dentition
    Primary dentition (3 studies): sensitivity ranged from 0.91 to 0.93. No evidence of a difference in accuracy by dentition (removing accuracy covariate: Chi2=3.15, df=1, P=0.08).
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
17 findings from 1 review
Show 14 more findings

CarieScan Pro device vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity · 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)
    CarieScan Pro (3 studies, 244 tooth surfaces): sensitivity ranged from 0.55 to 0.91. No evidence of a difference in accuracy by device type (Chi2=0.05, df=1, P=0.82).
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Digital radiographs (direct within-person / paired comparison); reference standard: histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
2 findings from 1 review

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
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 or enhanced visual examination (with or without radiographs)

Outcome not reported · Children/adolescents/adults or extracted teeth; target condition = non-cavitated enamel caries on SMOOTH tooth surfaces.

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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)
    No eligible studies. All included studies assessed occlusal surfaces only; smooth surfaces were a planned surface subgroup with no data.
    0 studies
    No studies found

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)

Specificity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
2 findings from 1 review