Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,692 questions · 2,586 findings · 180 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 194 · 7.5%GRADE not reported 1,937 · 74.9%Very low 248 · 9.6%Low 136 · 5.3%Moderate 52 · 2%High 19 · 0.7%

Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Diagnostic accuracy: in vitro versus in vivo comparison · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Study setting (in vitro vs in vivo)
    Pre-specified in vitro versus in vivo comparison was not completed because 49 of the 60 histology studies were in vitro; a sensitivity analysis removing the in vivo studies confirmed a minimal change to summary…
    Studies not reported
    GRADE not reported

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, laser fluorescence pen (2190) pooled specificity was 0.77 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.88) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, digital bitewing radiography (phosphor plates) pooled specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.995) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Electronic caries monitor (ECM) device (ECM II / ECM III / ECM IV) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    ECM (4 studies, 475 tooth surfaces): sensitivity ranged from 0.61 to 0.98 (0.61-0.65 in three studies; 0.98 in the most recent ECM IV study). No evidence of a difference in accuracy by device type (Chi2=0.05, df=1,…
    4 studies
    GRADE not reported

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)

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

Caries severity measurement (mean dmft for primary dentition; mean DMFT for permanent dentition) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Caries experience · Healthy children and adolescents (primary and permanent dentition) in the United Arab Emirates

Caries severity was substantial, with mean dmft 0.75-10.9 (primary dentition) and mean DMFT 1.48-3.19 (permanent dentition), and higher indices in Emirati than non-Emirati children (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) for enamel caries, not meta-analyzed · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin caries detection level (Ekstrand; D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, visual examination pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 16.6 (95% CI 4.85 to 56.79) for occlusal caries at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) 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…
3 findings from 1 review

Conventional bitewing radiography, F-speed film vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, conventional bitewing radiography (F-speed) pooled specificity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.998) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    SoF findings (HSROC; no summary operating point reported): 'ECM: specificity from 0.73 to 0.96 ... CarieScan Pro: specificity from 0 to 1.00'. Across all 7 studies (8 datasets), covering 719 tooth surfaces or sites (no…
    7 studies
    Very low

Conventional bitewing radiography (D-speed film) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the dentin caries detection level (D0-2 versus D3-4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, conventional bitewing radiography (D-speed) pooled specificity was 0.73 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.87) for occlusal caries at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Fibre-optic transillumination (FOTI) 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

Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, visual examination pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.59 for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, laser fluorescence pen (2190) pooled sensitivity was 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94) for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Other visual classification systems (unspecified or unique systems, e.g. Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS) 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

Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) 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

Oral hygiene knowledge and practices assessment vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Oral hygiene knowledge and practices · Children and adolescents in the United Arab Emirates

Oral hygiene knowledge and practices among UAE children and adolescents were generally suboptimal and variable across studies, with better practices among females (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Digital bitewing radiography, sensor-based (CCD/CMOS) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)

Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.91, 0.98) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding