Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35336328›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

New Caries Diagnostic Tools in Intraoral Scanners: A Comparative In Vitro Study to Established Methods in Permanent and Primary Teeth.

Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz, Berenike Schupp, Alexander Schmidt, Bernd Wöstmann, Ingo Baresel, Norbert Krämer, Nelly Schulz-Weidner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Improving oral health communication in paediatric dentistry using intraoral scanners: a multicentre pilot study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Recent Advances in Intraoral Scanners.Journal of dental research · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Maximiliane Amelie SchlenzDental Clinic-Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4747-824X
Berenike SchuppDental Clinic-Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Alexander SchmidtDental Clinic-Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Bernd WöstmannDental Clinic-Department of Prosthodontics, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Ingo BareselDental Practice Drs. Baresel, 90556 Cadolzburg, Germany.
Norbert KrämerDental Clinic-Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Nelly Schulz-WeidnerDental Clinic-Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4562-8232
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to systematically investigate new caries diagnostic tools, including three intraoral scanners, and compare them to established diagnostic methods. For a standardized analysis of occlusal and proximal caries lesions, human permanent and primary teeth (n = 64) were embedded in models and investigated in a phantom head using six different caries diagnostic methods: visual examination, bitewing radiography, Diagnocam (KaVo, Biberach, Germany), Trios 4 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark), iTero Element 5D (Align Technology, San José, CA, USA), and Planmeca Emerald S (Planmeca, Helsinki, Finland). The diagnostic methods were investigated and compared to reference µ-CT for permanent and primary teeth separately. For occlusal caries diagnostics in permanent teeth, the best agreement to the reference (reliability) was obtained for Planmeca Emerald S (ĸ = 0.700), whereas in primary teeth, for visual examination (ĸ = 0.927), followed by Trios 4 (ĸ = 0.579). Regarding proximal caries diagnostics, bitewing radiography, as the gold standard, exhibited the highest agreement for permanent (ĸ = 0.643) and primary teeth (ĸ = 0.871). Concerning the analysis of the diagnostic quality (sensitivity and specificity) using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, comparable findings were obtained for area under curve (AUC) values as for reliability. No diagnostic method could be identified that is generally suitable for occlusal and proximal lesions in both dentitions. Overall, caries diagnostics with intraoral scanners seem to be interesting tools that should be further investigated in clinical studies.

Indexed as

Dental Caries SusceptibilityTooth, DeciduousHumansRadiography, BitewingReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificitydental cariesdiagnostic techniquesdigital dentistryinterdisciplinary studyintraoral scannerspediatric dentistry

Identifiers

PMID35336328
PMCPMC8950989
OpenAlexW4221038954

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.