Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32333336›Full record

ArticleLasers in medical science2020

Clinical performance of clinical-visual examination, digital bitewing radiography, laser fluorescence, and near-infrared light transillumination for detection of non-cavitated proximal enamel and dentin caries.

Nazan Kocak, Esra Cengiz-Yanardag

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Dental Caries and Its Management.International journal of dentistry · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nazan KocakDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Mersin University, Ciftlikkoy Campus, Yenisehir, 33150, Mersin, Turkey. nazannkocak@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3717-2098
Esra Cengiz-YanardagDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mersin University, Mersin, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2651-2755
Mersin Üniversitesi · TR

Funding

Mersin Üniversitesi 2017-1-AP1-2000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of clinical-visual examination using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) II, digital bitewing radiography, near-infrared light transillumination (NIR-LT), and laser fluorescence (LF) for the detection of non-cavitated proximal enamel and dentin caries. The study included 335 patients, aged 12-18 years, with no cavities in the posterior teeth. Clinical-visual inspections of 335 non-cavitated proximal caries were performed by two examiners. For enamel caries, clinical validation included a combination of clinical-visual and digital bitewing radiography assessments. For dentin caries, the clinical validation was opening the cavity. The accuracy rate, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and areas under receiver operating characteristic curves were determined. The agreement between the examiners' measurements was calculated using the kappa coefficient. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the methods were compared using the McNemar test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. Digital bitewing radiography had the highest sensitivity (0.96) and accuracy (0.96), and LF had the lowest sensitivity (0.38) and accuracy (0.39). After separation of the lesions into enamel and dentin caries, clinical-visual examination had the highest sensitivity (0.98) and accuracy (0.98) for enamel caries, while digital bitewing radiography had the highest sensitivity (0.97) and accuracy (0.97) for dentin caries. The NIR-LT method had a higher sensitivity for enamel caries (0.86). Each method also differed significantly from the others (p < 0.001). Digital bitewing radiography gave the best prediction of proximal enamel and dentin caries. NIR-LT showed good potential for detection of proximal caries.

Indexed as

Infrared RaysLasersRadiography, BitewingTransilluminationDental CariesDental EnamelDentinFluorescenceHumansPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveYoung AdultCaries detectionLaser fluorescenceNear-infrared light transilluminationNon-cavitated cariesProximal caries

Identifiers

PMID32333336
OpenAlexW3017549423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.