Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

270 questions · 320 findings · 28 reviews

No studies found 58 · 18.1%GRADE not reported 96 · 30%Very low 86 · 26.9%Low 55 · 17.2%Moderate 16 · 5%High 9 · 2.8%

Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Visual or visual-tactile classification had a summary specificity of 0.81 (95% CrI 0.73, 0.87) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluorescence-based devices vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Fluorescence-based devices had a summary sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CrI 0.68, 0.82) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

2 findings from 1 review

Electrical conductance or impedance vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Electrical conductance or impedance had a summary sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CrI 0.66, 0.92) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review

Imaging (analog or digital radiographs) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Radiographic imaging had a summary specificity of 0.89 (95% CrI 0.83, 0.93) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

2 findings from 1 review

Imaging (analog or digital radiographs) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

In the fully within-person analysis, radiographic imaging had a summary sensitivity of 0.48 (95% CrI 0.35, 0.62); ungraded.

2 findings from 1 review

Transillumination and OCT vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Transillumination and OCT had a summary sensitivity of 0.76 (95% CrI 0.63, 0.86) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance or impedance vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Electrical conductance or impedance had a summary specificity of 0.72 (95% CrI 0.44, 0.89) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review

Analogue (conventional) 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

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or 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…
17 findings from 1 review
Show 14 more findings

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

Near-infrared (NIR) transillumination 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

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)

Sensitivity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
2 findings 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) · Permanent dentition
    Permanent dentition (4 studies): sensitivity ranged from 0.55 to 0.65.
    4 studies
    GRADE not reported
  • 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) · Primary dentition
    Primary dentition (3 studies): sensitivity ranged from 0.91 to 0.93. No evidence of a difference in accuracy by dentition (removing accuracy covariate: Chi2=3.15, df=1, P=0.08).
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) 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…
17 findings from 1 review
Show 14 more findings

CarieScan Pro device 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)
    CarieScan Pro (3 studies, 244 tooth surfaces): sensitivity ranged from 0.55 to 0.91. No evidence of a difference in accuracy by device type (Chi2=0.05, df=1, P=0.82).
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Digital radiographs (direct within-person / paired comparison); 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…
2 findings from 1 review

Analogue (conventional) 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

Fibre-optic transillumination (FOTI) 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

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard: histology or enhanced visual examination (with or without radiographs)

Outcome not reported · Children/adolescents/adults or extracted teeth; target condition = non-cavitated enamel caries on SMOOTH tooth surfaces.

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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)
    No eligible studies. All included studies assessed occlusal surfaces only; smooth surfaces were a planned surface subgroup with no data.
    0 studies
    No studies found

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 · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
2 findings from 1 review

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)

Sensitivity 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: sensitivity from 0.61 to 0.98 ... CarieScan Pro: sensitivity from 0.55 to 0.91'. Across all 7 studies (8 datasets), covering 719 tooth surfaces or sites…
    7 studies
    Very low