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 0.719 [0.677, 0.757]
5 studies
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.718 [0.637, 0.791]
5 studies
GRADE not reported
Relative DOR by setting (LFpen, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant setting difference for LFpen (RDOR 0.35, 0.04 to 2.99).
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=0%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Sensitivity 0.708 [0.669, 0.745]
8 studies
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.821 [0.739, 0.885]
8 studies
GRADE not reported
More advanced 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=77%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Relative DOR by setting (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
For LF on occlusal permanent teeth (advanced threshold), laboratory studies had significantly lower diagnostic accuracy than clinical studies (RDOR 0.28, 0.12 to 0.66).
2 findings from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Fluorescence camera on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR highest for FC among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=80%. 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 highest for FC among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=80%. 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 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) · Primary teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of primary teeth (initial-lesion threshold): only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool; heterogeneity I2=84%. 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 8); only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool. Heterogeneity I2=84%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
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 8); LFpen showed higher pooled DOR at the more advanced threshold. Heterogeneity I2=89%. Numeric pooled values not…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
More advanced 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=23%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Sensitivity 0.672 [0.616, 0.725]
13 studies
GRADE not reported
Specificity 0.816 [0.793, 0.837]
13 studies
GRADE not reported
More advanced 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=17%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.96, 0.12 to 7.77).
1 finding from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Fluorescence camera on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): accuracy similar among the three methods (very low inconsistency); heterogeneity I2=0%. 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 similar among the three methods (very low inconsistency). Heterogeneity I2=0%. Numeric pooled values not…
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 for FC among the higher values, exceeding LFpen. Heterogeneity I2=17%. Numeric pooled values not…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR lowest for LF among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=23%. 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 lowest for LF among the three methods. Heterogeneity I2=23%. 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 7); accuracy similar among LF, LFpen and FC. Heterogeneity I2=75%. Numeric pooled values not available in the provided…
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Initial 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=75%; no GRADE rating was reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Specificity 0.838 [0.810, 0.864]
14 studies
GRADE not reported
Sensitivity 0.622 [0.592, 0.651]
14 studies
GRADE not reported
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent teeth (occlusal and smooth surfaces), with suspected caries lesions
Only 3 QLF studies were included, so no pooled estimate of QLF diagnostic accuracy could be calculated (evidence not graded).
1 finding from 1 review
Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent and primary teeth, smooth surfaces, with suspected caries lesions
Only 2 LF studies assessed smooth surfaces, so no pooled estimate was possible; both reported higher specificity than sensitivity (evidence not graded).
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities
The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years.
6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings
Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities
The pooled survival rate was 41% at 2 years.
3 findings from 1 review
Survival percentage 41 [18, 67]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Survival percentage 86 [59, 98]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival percentage 77 [56, 92]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities
The pooled survival rate was 95% at 1 year.
3 findings from 1 review
Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities
The pooled survival rate was 62% at 2 years.
3 findings from 1 review
Development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants
In the single study reporting it, caries incidence was 0% in both the laser-alone and acid-etching groups (ungraded, single study).
1 finding from 1 review
Karaman 2013 (Er,Cr:YSGG laser vs acid-etching): incidence of caries was 0% in both groups; not meta-analyzed.
1 study · 16 participants
GRADE not reported