evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

99 questions · 162 findings · 10 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 11 · 6.8%GRADE not reported 124 · 76.5%Very low 9 · 5.6%Low 10 · 6.2%Moderate 8 · 4.9%High 0 · 0%

Other visual classification systems (unspecified or unique systems, e.g. Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Digital radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Near-infrared (NIR) transillumination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Digital radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Visual classification: ERK (Ekstrand-Ricketts-Kidd system) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy in previously restored teeth (secondary caries) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Restorations (secondary caries)
    Pre-specified heterogeneity investigation of teeth with previously applied restorations (secondary caries): no study intentionally included restored teeth in its sample. Studies evaluating secondary caries were…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Visual classification: ERK (Ekstrand-Ricketts-Kidd system) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Transillumination and optical coherence tomography devices (all illumination devices combined: NIR, OCT, and FOTI/DIFOTI) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

VistaProof (Durr Dental; blue fluorescence, 405 nm) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 24 / Figure 25; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 18 datasets, 2402 tooth sites.
    17 studies
    GRADE not reported

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

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 22 / Figure 23; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 34 datasets, 6842 tooth sites.
    32 studies
    GRADE not reported

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

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 22 / Figure 23; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 46 datasets, 7316 tooth sites.
    45 studies
    GRADE not reported

Red fluorescence devices (DIAGNOdent, DIAGNOdent pen, MidWest; excitation wavelength >655 nm) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Histology or excavation reference standard (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Permanent/mixed dentition (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity at fixed upper-quartile specificity 0.90 (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Combined index test: visual examination + radiograph + DIAGNOdent (Alomari 2015) vs Reference standard: histology

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Single site per tooth (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review