Restoration failure · Patients with carious teeth, affecting any tooth surface(s), in unrestored primary and permanent teeth
No dentinal caries removal (caries sealed under a preformed metal… probably leads to lower failure of restorations compared with complete caries removal (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
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