ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
The validity of laser fluorescence (LF) and near-infrared reflection (NIRR) in detecting early proximal cavities.
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 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging trends in the early diagnosis of dental caries: a scoping review of artificial intelligence, digital diagnostics, and teledentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- In Vivo Performance of Visual Criteria, Laser-Induced Fluorescence, and Light-Induced Fluorescence for Early Caries Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Use of Digital Diagnostic Aids for Initial Caries Detection: A Review.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Accuracy of high definition near infrared transillumination camera in detection of hidden proximal caries.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Article
- Frequency of caries in triangular-shaped radiolucencies on periapical radiographs of maxillary deciduous second molars.Dental research journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDiagnosing cavitated proximal lesions is important for therapeutic decisions. This clinical study aimed to determine the validity of laser fluorescence (LF) and near-infrared reflection (NIRR) techniques for detecting early proximal cavities. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 43 proximal surfaces in 15 females who had limited radiolucent lesions in their bitewing radiographs. The approximal areas of interest were assessed by DIAGNOdent Pen (LF) and the Proxi interchangeable head of VistaCam iX intraoral camera (NIRR). Finally, orthodontic separators were placed in the contact points to provide enough space between the teeth. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosing cavitated proximal surfaces were calculated for LF and NIRR against direct visual and tactile examination as the reference standard.
resultsOn the basis of the reference standard, 34 surfaces (79.1%) were not cavitated, whereas 9 surfaces (20.9%) were cavitated and in need of restoration. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of LF were 44.4%, 61.8%, and 58%, and those of NIRR were 88.9%, 14.7%, and 30%, respectively.
conclusionsThe VistaCam iX Proxi was more sensitive and DIAGNOdent Pen was more specific in detection of proximal cavities. However, none of the techniques was accurate enough to be recommended as a sole approach for proximal caries detection. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: LF showed an overall superior diagnostic performance to NIRR for diagnosing proximal cavitation in permanent posterior teeth. Within the limitations of this study, neither VistaCam iX Proxi nor DIAGNOdent Pen could be considered a suitable device for diagnosing proximal cavities.
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.