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
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
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
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
Signs or symptoms of pulpal disease · Patients with carious teeth, affecting any tooth surface(s), in unrestored primary and permanent teeth
Partial caries removal (single stage; residual dentinal caries… showed no clear difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease compared with complete caries removal (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
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