0.16–1
Visual examination may be supplemented by DIAGNOdent for the diagnosis of occlusal caries.
OCT, NIR, quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF)
30 to 433 teeth
Sensitivity of 0.93 [0.82, 0.98] and Specificity of 0.88 [0.75, 0.95]
The recommendations of the latest PRISMA statement for diagnostic tests accuracy studies and the PICO framework.
0.41 to 0.98
25–4,112 teeth
Visual examination
37 to 621
DIAGNOdent Pen
It has been studied with more emphasis on technical aspects than its diagnostic validity in a clinical setting.
The main formal databases utilized in this study were MED-
60%
0.78–0.99
To appraise the evidence on the performance of various means for the detection of incipient caries in vivo.
Diagnostic test accuracy studies for early caries detection in permanent and primary teeth.
Se: 0.81–0.89, Sp: 0.71–0.8
More than 60% of the included studies were characterized as having a high risk of bias regarding the reference standard.
More randomized controlled trials, with comparable protocols, experimental designs, and outcomes, are to be welcomed and valued.
0.72 to 0.91
22/51 were published between 2015 and 2019; 14/51 were published between 2010 and 2014; 12/51 in 2005–2009; and only 3/51 between 2000 and 2004
Histological examination and operative intervention
The DIAGNOdent Pen may also be used as an adjunct to visual examination.
Bitewing radiography
Moderate-to-high
The DD Pen appears to be more valid than BW, with the added benefit of not emitting ionizing radiation.
The clear heterogeneity between individual study reports did not allow for many studies to be mathematically synthesized and the results to benefit the precision of the summary effect.
Ηistological validation
Visual examination may be supplemented with the DIAGNOdent Pen for the diagnosis of occlusal lesions.
0.25
The overall DOR was 13.0 (95% CI: 5.25, 32.10), revealing 13 times higher odds for DIAGNOdent being positive in identifying true caries, compared to being positive when no true caries exist.
To compare all in vivo studies and frame future perspectives on the most efficient methods for early caries detection in the permanent and primary dentition.
To answer the question: “What is the accuracy of different diagnostic tools for early caries detection in primary and permanent teeth, as reported through visual examination, radiography, fluorescence, ultrasonic detection, infrared spectroscopy, and others, compared against reference standards for caries detection (histological, microscopic, and operative procedures) regardless of the type of teeth, dentition and age of the patient population?”
271
Robust conclusions cannot be drawn regarding their definite effectiveness due to considerable variation in the Se and Sp values detected.
0.56–0.96
25–4,112 teeth
The QUADAS-2 tool.
DD on occlusal surfaces and BW on approximal surfaces.
There have been different definitions for the term 'early' or 'incipient' caries over the years as well as various approaches for the management of these lesions.
ICDAS-II
4
Prevention and histological validation
Sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.98) and Specificity of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.95)
Assessing all available diagnostic methods for non-cavitated carious lesions in clinical trials.
The protocol of the Cochrane Collaboration (2014; The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) was followed in this review with Review Manager (RevMan v5.3.).
