Non-Cochrane · DTA · PM34480645
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries.
Janjic Rankovic Mila, Kapor Svetlana, Khazaei Yegane, et al. · Clinical oral investigations · 2021 · PubMed · doi:10.1007/s00784-021-04113-1
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
93
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
1
Included studies
36
linked below
No studies 1 · 1.1%Ungraded 92 · 98.9%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | In vivo and in vitro diagnostic studies of primary caries on proximal surfaces of permanent posterior teeth; primary teeth, restorations, secondary caries, and artificially induced lesions excluded | 36 studies pooled (n=31 in vitro, n=5 in vivo); 129 met initial inclusion, 43 low/moderate RoB, 36 with acceptable data reporting |
| Intervention | Caries detection methods: visual examination (with/without tactile); conventional bitewing radiography (D/E/F-speed film); digital bitewing radiography (sensor, phosphor plate); laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2095 and 2190/pen); fibre-optic transillumination (FOTI) | Poolable data for VE, conventional BWR (D/E/F-speed), digital BWR (sensor, phosphor plate), and laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190); FOTI yielded no poolable studies; DIAGNOdent 2095 not pooled |
| Comparison | Reference/gold standard: histological validation (in vitro); direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation (in vivo) | Histology (in vitro); tooth separation / bioptical cavity preparation or direct VE (in vivo) |
| Outcomes | Diagnostic test accuracy: sensitivity, specificity, Az/AUC from ROC curves, and/or reliability/reproducibility (Kappa) | Pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and AUC by method, threshold, and setting (Table 3); clinical/in vivo data limited |
| Study designs | In vitro (laboratory) and in vivo (clinical) settings | In vitro (n=31) predominated; in vivo (n=5) limited |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
Search date: Up to 31 December 2018 (English-language publications). Databases: MEDLINE (PubMed); EMBASE
Questions and results
Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
Population: Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.42, 0.81) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.64 [0.42, 0.81] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a summary ROC AUC of 0.84 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.84 | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a summary ROC AUC of 0.85 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.85 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 11.49 (95% CI 5.19, 25.46) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 11.49 [5.19, 25.46] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled specificity of 0.85 (95% CI 0.74, 0.92) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.85 [0.74, 0.92] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) 1/3 dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled specificity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76, 0.89) for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.84 [0.76, 0.89] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) 1/3 dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a summary ROC AUC of 0.95 for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.95 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 13.26 (95% CI 1.44, 122.51) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 13.26 [1.44, 122.51] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) 1/3 dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.77, 0.98) for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.93 [0.77, 0.98] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.94, 0.999) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.99 [0.94, 0.999] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) 1/3 dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 67.0 (95% CI 14.7, 304.9) for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 67.0 [14.7, 304.9] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.09 (95% CI 0.04, 0.24) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.09 [0.04, 0.24] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Visual examination (VE) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Population: Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, visual examination had a pooled specificity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.11, 0.99) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.76 [0.11, 0.99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, visual examination had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 1.84 (95% CI 0.03, 103.47) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 1.84 [0.03, 103.47] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, visual examination had a summary ROC AUC of 0.53 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.53 | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, visual examination had a pooled sensitivity of 0.32 (95% CI 0.07, 0.74) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.32 [0.07, 0.74] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Conventional bitewing radiography, D-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
Population: Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 31.0 (95% CI 3.3, 291.3) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 31.0 [3.3, 291.3] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 5.2 (95% CI 1.6, 16.8) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 5.2 [1.6, 16.8] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.96, 0.999) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.99 [0.96, 0.999] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.17 (95% CI 0.07, 0.40) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.17 [0.07, 0.40] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.19 (95% CI 0.13, 0.28) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.19 [0.13, 0.28] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.55 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.55 | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.91, 0.99) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.96 [0.91, 0.99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.91 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.91 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Conventional bitewing radiography, E-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
Population: Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.28, 0.57) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.42 [0.28, 0.57] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.82 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.82 | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84, 0.93) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.90 [0.84, 0.93] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.71, 0.99) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.94 [0.71, 0.99] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 6.80 (95% CI 4.58, 10.10) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 6.80 [4.58, 10.10] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 31.40 (95% CI 14.31, 68.93) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 31.40 [14.31, 68.93] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.92 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.92 | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.19, 0.95) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.67 [0.19, 0.95] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Conventional bitewing radiography, E-speed film vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Population: Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.91 (95% CI 0.80, 0.96) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.91 [0.80, 0.96] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.35 (95% CI 0.19, 0.51) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.35 [0.19, 0.51] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.74 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.74 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 4.8 (95% CI 1.48, 15.48) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 4.8 [1.48, 15.48] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Conventional bitewing radiography, F-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
Population: Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.74, 0.95) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.88 [0.74, 0.95] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) 1/3 dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI 0.36, 0.70) for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.54 [0.36, 0.70] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) 1/3 dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.996 (95% CI 0.96, 1) for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.996 [0.96, 1] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) 1/3 dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 283.6 (95% CI 16.1, 5010.0) for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 283.6 [16.1, 5010.0] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 8.7 (95% CI 4.2, 18.1) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 8.7 [4.2, 18.1] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.29, 0.56) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.42 [0.29, 0.56] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (1/3 dentin detection level) 1/3 dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.98 for proximal caries detection at the 1/3 dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.98 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.72 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.72 | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.81 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.81 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 5.34 (95% CI 2.55, 11.17) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 5.34 [2.55, 11.17] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.86, 0.96) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.92 [0.86, 0.96] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.43 (95% CI 0.31, 0.57) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.43 [0.31, 0.57] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Digital bitewing radiography, sensor-based (CCD/CMOS) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
Population: Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 12.84 (95% CI 6.56, 25.13) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 12.84 [6.56, 25.13] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.35 (95% CI 0.26, 0.45) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.35 [0.26, 0.45] | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.85, 0.93) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.90 [0.85, 0.93] | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 5.01 (95% CI 2.83, 8.88) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 5.01 [2.83, 8.88] | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.93, 0.97) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.95 [0.93, 0.97] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.90 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.90 | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.36 (95% CI 0.30, 0.42) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.36 [0.30, 0.42] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.74 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.74 | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Digital bitewing radiography, sensor-based (CCD/CMOS) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Population: Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.50 (95% CI 0.02, 0.98) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.50 [0.02, 0.98] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.77, 0.98) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.93 [0.77, 0.98] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level 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. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.96 [0.91, 0.98] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.55 (95% CI 0.42, 0.67) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.55 [0.42, 0.67] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 17.11 (95% CI 3.73, 78.39) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 17.11 [3.73, 78.39] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.89 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.89 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 24.4 (95% CI 0.44, 1359.98) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 24.4 [0.44, 1359.98] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.82 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.82 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
Population: Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.82 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.82 | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.92 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.92 | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.41 (95% CI 0.25, 0.61) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.41 [0.25, 0.61] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.83, 0.93) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.89 [0.83, 0.93] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.03, 0.99) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.86 [0.03, 0.99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 26.06 (95% CI 7.29, 93.21) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 26.06 [7.29, 93.21] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.11, 0.99) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.86 [0.11, 0.99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 5.56 (95% CI 3.04, 10.16) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 5.56 [3.04, 10.16] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Population: Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.20, 0.90) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.60 [0.20, 0.90] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.77, 0.88) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.83 [0.77, 0.88] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 7.5 (95% CI 1.19, 47.13) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 7.5 [1.19, 47.13] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.79 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.79 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)
Population: Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.83 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.83 | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.76, 0.95) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.89 [0.76, 0.95] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 30.79 (95% CI 8.74, 108.51) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 30.79 [8.74, 108.51] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.62, 0.90) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.79 [0.62, 0.90] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled specificity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.78, 0.85) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.85] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.91 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.91 | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI 0.58, 0.94) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.82 [0.58, 0.94] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 23.09 (95% CI 7.01, 76.04) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 23.09 [7.01, 76.04] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation
Population: Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15, 0.93) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.60 [0.15, 0.93] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled sensitivity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.82, 0.96) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.92 [0.82, 0.96] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.96 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.96 | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.63 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | AUC 0.63 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 99 (95% CI 22.01, 445.30) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 99 [22.01, 445.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) Caries detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled specificity of 0.90 (95% CI 0.73, 0.97) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.90 [0.73, 0.97] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 2.18 (95% CI 0.24, 19.95) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | DOR 2.18 [0.24, 19.95] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) Dentin detection level Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled sensitivity of 0.63 (95% CI 0.58, 0.68) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded. Source: Table 3 (bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis); Results · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.63 [0.58, 0.68] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Fibre-optic transillumination (FOTI) vs Histological validation (in vitro) or direct visual examination after tooth separation / bioptical cavity preparation (in vivo)
Population: Permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces (in vitro extracted teeth and in vivo patients)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection For fibre-optic transillumination (FOTI), studies were identified (in vitro N=4, in vivo N=3) but none had sufficiently low risk of bias and adequate reporting to be pooled; no meta-analytic estimate could be derived. Source: Table 2 (FOTI: in vitro N=4, in vivo N=3, none passed quality assessment); Table 3 (FOTI row, no estimates); Results · same question in other reviews | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Included primary studies 36
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abesi 2012 Diagnostic accuracy of digital and conventional radiography in the detection of non-cavitated approximal dental caries. PMID:23329955 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Abogazalah 2019 In vitro visual and visible light transillumination methods for detection of natural non-cavitated approximal caries DOI:10.1007/s00784-018-2546-3 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ariji 1998 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Astvaldsdottir 2012 Approximal Caries Detection by DIFOTI: In Vitro Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy/Efficacy with Film and Digital Radiography. PMID:23213335 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Behere 2011 Reliability of Logicon caries detector in the detection and depth assessment of dental caries: An in-vitro study DOI:10.4103/0970-9290.84277 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Bozdemir 2016 Comparison of different caries detectors for approximal caries detection. PMID:30894987 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| da Silva Neto 2008 Radiographic diagnosis of incipient proximal caries: an ex-vivo study DOI:10.1590/s0103-64402008000200002 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| de Souza 2014 In vitro performance of a pen-type laser fluorescence device and bitewing radiographs for approximal caries detection in permanent and… DOI:10.4103/0970-9290.152165 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ekstrand 2011 The Reliability and Accuracy of Two Methods for Proximal Caries Detection and Depth on Directly Visible Proximal Surfaces: An in vitro Study DOI:10.1159/000324439 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Forner-Navarro 2008 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Haak 2003 Influence of displayed image size on radiographic detection of approximal caries DOI:10.1259/dmfr/17654484 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Haiter-Neto 2009 Task-specific enhancement filters in storage phosphor images from the Vistascan system for detection of proximal caries lesions of known… DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.09.031 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hintze 2003 Diagnostic Outcome of Methods Frequently Used for Caries Validation DOI:10.1159/000069016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Huth 2010 In vivo performance of a laser fluorescence device for the approximal detection of caries in permanent molars DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.09.001 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Isidor 2009 Effect of monitor display on detection of approximal caries lesions in digital radiographs DOI:10.1259/dmfr/21071028 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Jan 2016 Proximal caries lesion detection using the <scp>C</scp>anary <scp>C</scp>aries <scp>D</scp>etection <scp>S</scp>ystem: an <i>in vitro</i>… DOI:10.1111/jicd.12163 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kuhnisch 2016 In vivo validation of near-infrared light transillumination for interproximal dentin caries detection DOI:10.1007/s00784-015-1559-4 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Lussi 2006 Detection of Approximal Caries with a New Laser Fluorescence Device DOI:10.1159/000091054 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Matalon 2003 Diagnosis of approximal caries: Bite-wing radiology versus the Ultrasound Caries Detector. An in vitro study DOI:10.1067/moe.2003.164 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Menem 2017 The diagnostic accuracy of a laser fluorescence device and digital radiography in detecting approximal caries lesions in posterior… PMID:28194533 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Mitropoulos 2010 Diagnostic performance of the visual caries classification system ICDAS II versus radiography and micro-computed tomography for proximal… DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.07.005 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Neuhaus 2015 Diagnostic performance of a new red light LED device for approximal caries detection DOI:10.1007/s10103-014-1607-3 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ozkan 2017 Clinical evaluation of near-infrared light transillumination in approximal dentin caries detection DOI:10.1007/s10103-017-2265-z | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pontual 2010 Comparison of digital systems and conventional dental film for the detection of approximal enamel caries. PMID:20841461 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ricketts 1997 An evaluation of the diagnostic yield from bitewing radiographs of small approximal and occlusal carious lesions in a low prevalence… DOI:10.1038/sj.bdj.4809298 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Rockenbach 2008 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Safi 2015 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Senel 2010 Diagnostic accuracy of different imaging modalities in detection of proximal caries. PMID:21062944 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shimada 2014 Noninvasive cross‐sectional imaging of proximal caries using swept‐source optical coherence tomography (SS‐OCT) <i>in vivo</i> DOI:10.1002/jbio.201200210 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Tonkaboni 2019 Comparison of diagnostic effects of infrared imaging and bitewing radiography in proximal caries of permanent teeth DOI:10.1007/s10103-018-2663-x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Vivek 2015 Comparison of Diagnostic Ability of Storage Phosphor Plate in Detecting Proximal Caries with Direct Measurement by Stereomicroscope: A… PMID:26664712 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wenzel 2002 Accuracy of computer‐automated caries detection in digital radiographs compared with human observers DOI:10.1034/j.1600-0447.2002.21245.x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wenzel 2007a Risk Factors for a False Positive Test Outcome in Diagnosis of Caries in Approximal Surfaces: Impact of Radiographic Modality and Observer… DOI:10.1159/000099314 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wenzel 2007b Influence of spatial resolution and bit depth on detection of small caries lesions with digital receptors DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.05.016 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| ZangooeiBooshehry 2010 Efficacy of application of pseudocolor filters in the detection of interproximal caries. PMID:22991603 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Zayet 2014 Effect of changing the kilovoltage peak on radiographic caries assessment in digital and conventional radiography. PMID:25279340 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |