ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2024
Efficiency of Near-Infrared Technology in the Clinical Detection of Carious Lesions: A Systematic Review.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- In Vivo Comparison of Laser Fluorescence, Near-Infrared Transillumination, and Conventional Methods for Approximal Caries Detection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Atlas of Dental Near-Infrared Transillumination Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Detection, Diagnosis, and Monitoring of Early Caries: The Future of Individualized Dental Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The field of dentistry has seen various technological advances regarding caries detection, some lesions still prove to be difficult to detect. A reasonably new detection method, near-infrared (NIR), has shown good results in caries detection. This systematic review aims to compare NIR with conventional methods in terms of caries detection. Online databases (PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, and ProQuest) were used for the literature search. The search was performed from January 2015 till December-2020. A total of 770 articles were selected, of that 17 articles qualified for the final analysis as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The articles were assessed according to a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist, and then synthesis of the review started. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials done in vivo on teeth with active caries of vital or nonvital teeth. This review excluded nonpeer reviewed articles, case reports, case series, opinions, abstracts, non-English written articles, studies of subjects with arrested caries, or teeth with developmental defects of tooth structure and teeth having environmental defects of tooth structure, as well as in-vitro studies. The review compared near-infrared technology with radiography, visual inspection, and laser fluorescence in terms of caries detection, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. The sensitivity of NIR ranged from 99.1 to 29.1%. Studies showed that NIR exhibited higher sensitivity for occlusal enamel and dentin caries. The specificity of NIR ranged from 94.1 to 20.0%. In enamel and dentinal occlusal caries, NIR demonstrated lower specificity than that of radiograph. The specificity of NIR in early proximal caries was low. Accuracy was determined in 5 out of 17 studies where the values ranged from 97.1 to 29.1%. The accuracy of NIR was the highest for dentinal occlusal caries. NIR shows promising evidence as an adjunct in caries examination due to its high sensitivity and specificity; however, more studies are required to determine its full potential in different situations.
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.