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%

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

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

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

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

Stepwise excavation (two-stage caries removal, re-entry after an interval) vs Complete caries removal

Pulp exposure during caries removal · Patients with carious teeth, affecting any tooth surface(s), in unrestored primary and permanent teeth

Stepwise excavation (two-stage caries removal, re-entry after an… probably leads to lower pulp exposure during caries removal compared with one stage complete caries removal (moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

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

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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

Stepwise excavation (two-stage caries removal, re-entry after an interval) vs Complete caries removal

Signs or symptoms of pulpal disease · Patients with carious teeth, affecting any tooth surface(s), in unrestored primary and permanent teeth

Stepwise excavation (two-stage caries removal, re-entry after an… showed no clear difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease compared with one stage complete caries removal (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

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

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

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

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard

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

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

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

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard

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

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

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

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

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