Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

68 questions · 118 findings · 7 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 13 · 11%GRADE not reported 78 · 66.1%Very low 11 · 9.3%Low 14 · 11.9%Moderate 2 · 1.7%High 0 · 0%

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
OR 0.78 [0.42, 1.47]
2 studies · 226 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
OR 1.02 [0.48, 2.17]
2 studies · 282 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final ANB compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.17 [-0.67, 0.34]
2 studies · 222 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -0.04 [-0.49, 0.41]
2 studies · 271 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.81 [-2.21, 0.58]
2 studies · 224 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance

Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with early treatment (two-phase) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.21 [-0.57, 0.15]
2 studies · 225 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD 0.75 [0.21, 1.29]
2 studies · 271 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -1.55 [-3.7, 0.6]
2 studies · 177 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Incidence of new incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear may leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
OR 0.45 [0.25, 0.8]
2 studies · 237 participants
Low

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.22 [-0.56, 0.12]
2 studies · 238 participants
Low
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -1.07 [-1.63, -0.51]
2 studies · 278 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
OR 0.76 [0.37, 1.54]
2 studies · 285 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear led to lower final ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -0.72 [-1.18, -0.27]
2 studies · 277 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.27 [-0.8, 0.26]
2 studies · 231 participants
Low

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Self concept · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… showed no clear difference in self concept compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.83 [-3.97, 2.31]
1 study · 132 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -3.63 [-7.66, 0.4]
1 study · 135 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Incidence of new incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… probably leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
OR 0.56 [0.33, 0.95]
3 studies · 332 participants
Moderate

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -4.17 [-4.61, -3.73]
3 studies · 432 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD 0.21 [-0.1, 0.51]
3 studies · 343 participants
Low

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower final ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -0.89 [-1.38, -0.4]
3 studies · 419 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD -0.02 [-0.47, 0.43]
3 studies · 347 participants
Moderate

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
OR 0.72 [0.35, 1.49]
2 studies · 281 participants
GRADE not reported

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of phase I (growth modification phase)
MD -10.52 [-12.32, -8.71]
2 studies · 349 participants
GRADE not reported
Orthodontic treatment for prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion) in children and adolescents 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of orthodontic treatment (phase II)
MD 0.62 [-0.66, 1.91]
3 studies · 360 participants
GRADE not reported

Fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume, frequency or technique; swished and expectorated, not swallowed) vs placebo or no treatment

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

It is very uncertain whether fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume,… changes unacceptability of treatment as measured by leaving study early… compared with placebo or no treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
At least 1 year/school year
RR 1.33 [0.62, 2.83]
4 studies · 1700 participants
Very low

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

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)
Sensitivity 0.44 [0.38, 0.50]
51 studies
GRADE not reported

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

17 findings 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) · Reference standard: enhanced visual (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.47 [0.29, 0.66]
8 studies
GRADE not reported
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) · Permanent dentition (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.44 [0.37, 0.51]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Dentine-caries (D3) prevalence medium 15-34% (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.51 [0.40, 0.61]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

Show 14 more findings

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) · Dentine-caries (D3) prevalence low <15% (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.36 [0.25, 0.47]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Reference standard: excavation (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.51 [0.27, 0.74]
5 studies
GRADE not reported
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) · Analogue and digital combined (non-CBCT); 97 datasets
Sensitivity 0.46 [0.40, 0.51]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Dentine-caries (D3) prevalence high >=35% or unreported (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.50 [0.40, 0.59]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Sensitivity analysis: low risk of bias for index test
Sensitivity 0.51 [0.43, 0.61]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Sensitivity analysis: excluding high/unclear risk of bias reference standard
Sensitivity 0.51 [0.45, 0.57]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Setting: in vivo / clinical (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.56 [0.43, 0.69]
17 studies
GRADE not reported
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) · Setting: in vitro (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.44 [0.37, 0.50]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Sensitivity analysis: low dentine-caries prevalence <15%
Sensitivity 0.34 [0.25, 0.45]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Reference standard: histology (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.46 [0.39, 0.53]
64 studies
GRADE not reported
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)
Sensitivity 0.47 [0.40, 0.53]
77 studies
Low
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) · Occlusal surfaces (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.45 [0.35, 0.54]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Primary dentition (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.52 [0.40, 0.63]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Proximal surfaces (non-CBCT)
Sensitivity 0.47 [0.39, 0.55]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

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

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) · Proximal surfaces (CBCT)
Specificity 0.90 [0.77, 0.96]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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)
Specificity 0.81 [0.73, 0.88]
7 studies
GRADE not reported
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) · Occlusal surfaces (CBCT)
Specificity 0.54 [0.31, 0.75]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

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

17 findings 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) · Permanent dentition (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.90 [0.85, 0.93]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Sensitivity analysis: low risk of bias for index test
Specificity 0.88 [0.82, 0.92]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Dentine-caries (D3) prevalence high >=35% or unreported (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.89 [0.82, 0.93]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

Show 14 more findings

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) · Setting: in vitro (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.89 [0.84, 0.92]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Proximal surfaces (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.89 [0.84, 0.93]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Primary dentition (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.87 [0.77, 0.93]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Occlusal surfaces (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.88 [0.80, 0.93]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Sensitivity analysis: excluding high/unclear risk of bias reference standard
Specificity 0.87 [0.83, 0.90]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Reference standard: excavation (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.96 [0.80, 0.99]
5 studies
GRADE not reported
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) · Dentine-caries (D3) prevalence medium 15-34% (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.87 [0.78, 0.92]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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)
Specificity 0.88 [0.84, 0.92]
77 studies
Low
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) · Analogue and digital combined (non-CBCT); 97 datasets
Specificity 0.89 [0.86, 0.92]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Sensitivity analysis: low dentine-caries prevalence <15%
Specificity 0.91 [0.87, 0.94]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Dentine-caries (D3) prevalence low <15% (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.91 [0.85, 0.95]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
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) · Setting: in vivo / clinical (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.89 [0.78, 0.95]
17 studies
GRADE not reported
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) · Reference standard: enhanced visual (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.91 [0.77, 0.97]
8 studies
GRADE not reported
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) · Reference standard: histology (non-CBCT)
Specificity 0.88 [0.83, 0.92]
64 studies
GRADE not reported