ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
What diagnostic strategy performs better for caries lesion detection on proximal surfaces of adolescents?
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of laser fluorescence and conventional caries detection methods in children: a systematic review and meta analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the performance of visual inspection alone and associated to radiographic and laser fluorescence (LF) methods in detecting non-evident caries lesions at adolescents' proximal surfaces. MATERIALS AND
methodsAdolescents (12 to 17 years old) were assessed for the presence of caries lesions through visual inspection, radiographic examination, and LF method (DIAGNOdent pen), at non-cavitated (NC) and cavitated lesion (CAV) thresholds. Temporary separation with orthodontic rubbers followed by direct visual inspection was the reference standard method. Two examiners conducted the examinations, and the first examiner reassessed around 20% of the sample, to evaluate inter- and intra-examiner reproducibility, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and utility values were calculated for the methods alone and combined with visual inspection using two different strategies: simultaneous and sequential combination.
resultsA total of 834 proximal surfaces (51 adolescents) were included. Visual inspection presented higher reproducibility values (higher than 0.98). Moreover, visual inspection presented higher sensitivity (around 0.51) than those obtained with other diagnostic strategies (varying from 0.09 to 0.20) at the NC threshold. For CAV, visual inspection presented higher specificity (0.996) than the sequential association with adjunct methods (around 0.97), but with lower sensitivity. Accuracy and utility values for combined strategies were similar or lower than those achieved with the visual inspection performed alone.
conclusionVisual inspection alone performs better for detecting caries lesions in premolars and molars of adolescents than other diagnostic strategies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The best diagnostic strategy for caries detection of proximal caries lesions in adolescents is the visual inspection alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.