Sensitivity for detecting advanced occlusal caries · Occlusal surfaces of permanent molars (demonstrated in 12-14 year-olds; underlying diagnostic accuracy studies, mostly in vitro)
In the meta-analysis tailored to Germany, pooled sensitivity of visual detection for advanced occlusal caries was 43.7% (95% CI 37 to 51) (ungraded).
3 findings from 1 review
Sensitivity 43.7 [37, 51]
50 studies
GRADE not reported
Sensitivity 64.6 [57, 71]
94 studies
GRADE not reported
Sensitivity 75.1 [70, 81]
55 studies
GRADE not reported
Caries lesion arrestment · Children with dentin caries lesions in the outer half of dentin on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth
Resin sealing and conventional restorative treatment (resin composite) did not differ significantly for caries lesion arrestment in outer-half occlusal dentin caries of primary teeth (2 studies; low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Relative DOR by setting (FC, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant setting difference for FC (RDOR 2.96, 0.36 to 24.45).
2 findings from 1 review
More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with approximal surfaces
Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=89%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Initial caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces
Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=0%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Sensitivity 0.482 [0.433, 0.531]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.815 [0.713, 0.892]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Pen-type laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR for LFpen lower than for LF and FC; heterogeneity I2=73%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); pooled DOR for LFpen lower than for LF and FC. Heterogeneity I2=73%. Numeric pooled values not available in the…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); accuracy similar among LF, LFpen and FC. Heterogeneity I2=54%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces
Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=73%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
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
Initial caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces
Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=54%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Specificity 0.818 [0.751, 0.873]
9 studies
GRADE not reported
Sensitivity 0.749 [0.715, 0.781]
9 studies
GRADE not reported
More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with approximal surfaces
Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=84%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR, sROC AUC) similar among LF, LFpen and FC; heterogeneity I2=65%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR, sROC AUC) similar among LF, LFpen and FC. Heterogeneity I2=65%.…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 6); pooled DOR higher for LF (and FC) than for LFpen. Heterogeneity I2=77%. Numeric pooled values not available in the…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Initial caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with approximal surfaces
Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=93%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, initial, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the initial threshold (RDOR 4.41, 0.19 to 103.92).
1 finding from 1 review
Initial caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with approximal surfaces
Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=84%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Sensitivity 0.354 [0.324, 0.385]
5 studies
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.870 [0.843, 0.895]
5 studies
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Pen-type laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR intermediate for LFpen among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=31%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); pooled DOR intermediate for LFpen among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=31%. Numeric pooled values not available…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 7); accuracy similar among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=0%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of permanent teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): LFpen showed similar values at both thresholds; heterogeneity I2=84%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).
2 findings from 1 review
Fluorescence-based methods for detecting caries lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and sources of heterogeneity. 2013 All outcomesMore advanced (dentine/cavitated) caries lesions threshold · Laboratory (in vitro) and clinical (in vivo)
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 8); LFpen showed similar values at both thresholds. Heterogeneity I2=84%. Numeric pooled values not available in the…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR and summary-ROC AUC reported qualitatively (Figure 8); only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool; similar values at both thresholds. Heterogeneity I2=93%. Numeric pooled…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces
Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=31%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Initial caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces
Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=65%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Sensitivity 0.779 [0.763, 0.794]
27 studies
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.712 [0.690, 0.734]
27 studies
GRADE not reported
Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, initial, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
LF performed significantly better with other reference standards than with histological validation at the initial threshold (RDOR 4.13, 1.24 to 13.76).
2 findings from 1 review
More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces
Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=80%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Specificity 0.898 [0.867, 0.924]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Sensitivity 0.850 [0.702, 0.943]
2 studies
GRADE not reported