Non-Cochrane · DTA · PM41238662
Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and locations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lee Eun-Song, Hwang Jeehyun, Cheng Lei, et al. · Scientific reports · 2025 · PubMed · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-23631-6
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
23
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
1
Included studies
28
linked below
No studies 1 · 4.3%Ungraded 22 · 95.7%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 | Individuals with dental caries lesions; human primary or permanent teeth assessed on occlusal, approximal, or smooth surfaces | 17 studies; 5 in vivo, 11 in vitro, 1 mixed design; permanent (13) and primary (4) dentition; sample sizes 40-627 teeth (in vivo) and 21-400 teeth (in vitro) |
| Intervention | Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) technology (delta F and/or delta R parameters) | QLF devices: QLF-Clin, Inspektor Pro, QLF-D, Qraypen C; parameters delta F and delta R |
| Comparison | A clearly defined, appropriate reference standard (e.g., ICDAS visual examination, histology, radiography) | Reference standards: histology, ICDAS visual examination, radiography/bitewing, ADA classification |
| Outcomes | Diagnostic validity: sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC), derived from 2x2 tables (TP/FP/TN/FN) | Pooled sensitivity/specificity via HSROC (MetaDTA): in vivo occlusal 0.86/0.82 (4 studies); in vivo proximal 0.74/0.82 (4); in vitro occlusal 0.83/0.74 (5); in vitro proximal 0.83/0.74 (3). Per-study AUC 0.59-0.99. AUC not pooled; no confidence intervals reported in text or Table 4 |
| Study designs | In vivo (clinical) and in vitro (laboratory) diagnostic accuracy studies; primary and permanent dentition | 17 included; occlusal (11), proximal (5), smooth (1) surface studies; meta-analysis in 9 studies (4 in vivo, 5 in vitro) |
| Timing | Not specified (cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy) | Not specified |
Search date: May 2023. Databases: Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; plus manual reference-list screening (study-selection text also reports 242 records from PubMed and 239 from Embase)
Questions and results
Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (ICDAS II visual examination, ADA classification, bitewing radiography)
Population: Patients (in vivo); permanent and primary teeth, occlusal surfaces
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Occlusal caries detection: specificity Permanent dentition In vivo, QLF pooled specificity for occlusal caries in permanent teeth was 0.80 (3 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.80 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal caries detection: sensitivity Permanent dentition In vivo, QLF pooled sensitivity for occlusal caries in permanent teeth was 0.86 (3 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.86 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal caries detection: sensitivity Overall (all dentition) In vivo, QLF pooled sensitivity for occlusal caries detection was 0.86 (4 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis'; Abstract; Conclusion · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.86 | 4 studies | Ungraded |
detection of occlusal caries all dentitions Population: human primary or permanent teeth with dental caries lesions QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.82 for occlusal caries (all dentitions, in vivo). Source: Table 4; Data synthesis · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.82 | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal caries detection: specificity Overall (all dentition) In vivo, QLF pooled specificity for occlusal caries detection was 0.82 (4 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis'; Abstract; Conclusion · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.82 | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (bitewing radiography, ADA classification, ICDAS II)
Population: Patients (in vivo); permanent and primary teeth, proximal (approximal) surfaces
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proximal caries detection: specificity Permanent dentition In vivo, QLF pooled specificity for proximal caries in permanent teeth was 0.81 (3 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.81 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
detection of occlusal caries permanent dentition Population: human primary or permanent teeth with dental caries lesions QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.80 for occlusal caries (permanent dentition, in vivo). Source: Table 4; Data synthesis · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.80 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Proximal caries detection: specificity Overall (all dentition) In vivo, QLF pooled specificity for proximal caries detection was 0.82 (4 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis'; Abstract; Conclusion · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.82 | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Proximal caries detection: sensitivity Overall (all dentition) In vivo, QLF pooled sensitivity for proximal caries detection was 0.74 (4 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis'; Abstract; Conclusion · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.74 | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Proximal caries detection: sensitivity Permanent dentition In vivo, QLF pooled sensitivity for proximal caries in permanent teeth was 0.76 (3 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.76 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology; some ICDAS/radiography)
Population: Extracted human teeth (in vitro); permanent and primary teeth, occlusal surfaces
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Occlusal caries detection: sensitivity Overall (all dentition) In vitro, QLF pooled sensitivity for occlusal caries detection was 0.83 (5 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.83 | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal caries detection: specificity Permanent dentition In vitro, QLF pooled specificity for occlusal caries in permanent teeth was 0.66 (3 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.66 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal caries detection: sensitivity Primary dentition In vitro, QLF pooled sensitivity for occlusal caries in primary teeth was 0.63 (2 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.63 | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal caries detection: specificity Overall (all dentition) In vitro, QLF pooled specificity for occlusal caries detection was 0.74 (5 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.74 | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal caries detection: sensitivity Permanent dentition In vitro, QLF pooled sensitivity for occlusal caries in permanent teeth was 0.91 (3 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.91 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal caries detection: specificity Primary dentition In vitro, QLF pooled specificity for occlusal caries in primary teeth was 0.81 (2 studies; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.81 | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology, radiography)
Population: Extracted human teeth (in vitro); permanent teeth, proximal (approximal) surfaces
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proximal caries detection: sensitivity Overall (all studies permanent) In vitro, QLF pooled sensitivity for proximal caries detection was 0.83 (3 permanent-teeth studies; no primary-dentition data; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.83 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Proximal caries detection: specificity Overall (all studies permanent) In vitro, QLF pooled specificity for proximal caries detection was 0.74 (3 permanent-teeth studies; no primary-dentition data; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results 'Data synthesis' · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.74 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs reference standard
Population: human primary or permanent teeth with dental caries lesions
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
detection of proximal caries Permanent dentition (all 3 included studies) QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.74 for proximal caries (all dentitions, in vitro). Source: Table 4; Data synthesis · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.83 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
detection of proximal caries Permanent dentition (all 3 included studies) QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.74 for proximal caries (all dentitions, in vitro). Source: Table 4; Data synthesis · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.74 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs reference standard
Population: human primary or permanent teeth with dental caries lesions
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
detection of proximal caries permanent dentition QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.74 for proximal caries (permanent dentition, in vitro). Source: Table 4; Data synthesis · same question in other reviews | Specificity 0.74 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
detection of proximal caries permanent dentition QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.74 for proximal caries (permanent dentition, in vitro). Source: Table 4; Data synthesis · same question in other reviews | Sensitivity 0.83 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs reference standard
Population: primary teeth with proximal caries
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
detection of proximal caries primary dentition No eligible in vitro studies of primary teeth with proximal caries were found. Source: Table 4; Data synthesis · same question in other reviews | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Included primary studies 28
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cho 2021 Inhibition of dentine caries using fluoride solution with silver nanoparticles: An in vitro study DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103512 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Cho et al. (2021) The diagnostic efficacy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detection of dental caries of primary teeth. PMID:34637890 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Diniz 2016 Caries Detection around Restorations Using <scp>ICDAS</scp> and Optical Devices DOI:10.1111/jerd.12183 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Diniz 2019 Performance of light-emitting diode device in detecting occlusal caries in the primary molars DOI:10.1007/s10103-019-02717-4 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Diniz et al. (2016) Caries Detection around Restorations Using ICDAS and Optical Devices. PMID:26954886 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Diniz et al. (2019) Performance of light-emitting diode device in detecting occlusal caries in the primary molars. PMID:30673922 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gomez 2013 In vitro performance of different methods in detecting occlusal caries lesions DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2012.11.003 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gomez et al. (2013) In vitro performance of different methods in detecting occlusal caries lesions. PMID:23146817 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Jallad 2015 In vitro Detection of Occlusal Caries on Permanent Teeth by a Visual, Light-Induced Fluorescence and Photothermal Radiometry and Modulated… DOI:10.1159/000437214 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Jallad et al. (2015) In vitro Detection of Occlusal Caries on Permanent Teeth by a Visual, Light-Induced Fluorescence and Photothermal Radiometry and Modulated… PMID:26316073 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Jung 2018 Development of a fluorescence-image scoring system for assessing noncavitated occlusal caries DOI:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2017.10.027 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Jung et al. (2018) Development of a fluorescence-image scoring system for assessing noncavitated occlusal caries. PMID:29102651 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kim 2017 A new screening method to detect proximal dental caries using fluorescence imaging DOI:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2017.10.009 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kim et al. (2017) A new screening method to detect proximal dental caries using fluorescence imaging. PMID:29079349 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ko 2015 Validation of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) for the detection of approximal caries in vitro DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.010 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ko et al. (2015) Validation of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) for the detection of approximal caries in vitro. PMID:25724115 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Lee 2018 Validity assessment of quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital (QLF-D) for the dental plaque scoring system: a cross-sectional… PMID:30458753 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Lenzi 2016 <i>In vitro</i> performance of <scp>QLF</scp> system and conventional methods for detection of occlusal caries around tooth‐colored… DOI:10.1111/ipd.12154 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Lenzi et al. (2016) In vitro performance of QLF system and conventional methods for detection of occlusal caries around tooth-colored restorations in primary… PMID:25604208 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Oh 2021 Detection of Dental Caries and Cracks with Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence in Comparison to Radiographic and Visual Examination: A… PMID:33802443 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Oh 2022 Evaluation of dental caries detection with quantitative light-induced fluorescence in comparison to different field of view devices. PMID:35414687 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pereira 2011 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pontes 2017 Clinical performance of fluorescence-based methods for detection of occlusal caries lesions in primary teeth DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0091 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pontes et al. (2017) Clinical performance of fluorescence-based methods for detection of occlusal caries lesions in primary teeth. PMID:29116301 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shi 2001 Comparison of QLF and DIAGNOdent for Quantification of Smooth Surface Caries DOI:10.1159/000047426 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shi et al. (2001) Comparison of QLF and DIAGNOdent for quantification of smooth surface caries. PMID:11125192 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yoon 2017 Detection of proximal caries using quantitative light-induced fluorescence-digital and laser fluorescence: a comparative study. PMID:29279762 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Zandona 2010 Use of ICDAS combined with quantitative light-induced fluorescence as a caries detection method. PMID:20588022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |