Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

78 questions · 124 findings · 7 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 10 · 8.1%GRADE not reported 91 · 73.4%Very low 6 · 4.8%Low 17 · 13.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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: Enhanced visual examination 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

Enhanced one-to-one OHA vs Routine one-to-one OHA

Gingivitis · Children or adults (fit and healthy, or with a well-defined medical condition)

It is very uncertain whether enhanced one-to-one OHA changes periodontal health: gingivitis compared with one-to-one OHA (standard) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Enhanced one-to-one OHA vs Routine one-to-one OHA

Plaque · Children or adults (fit and healthy, or with a well-defined medical condition)

It is very uncertain whether enhanced one-to-one OHA changes periodontal health: plaque levels compared with one-to-one OHA (standard) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Enhanced one-to-one OHA vs Routine one-to-one OHA

Patient-reported changes in knowledge, attitudes and quality of life · Children or adults (fit and healthy, or with a well-defined medical condition)
1 finding from 1 review

Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) 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, visual classification had a summary sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CrI 0.73, 0.89); ungraded.

2 findings from 1 review

Transillumination and OCT 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)

Transillumination and OCT had a summary specificity of 0.82 (95% CrI 0.68, 0.91) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluorescence-based devices 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)

In the fully within-person analysis, fluorescence had a summary specificity of 0.88 (95% CrI 0.78, 0.94); ungraded.

2 findings from 1 review

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