Trial reportScientific reports2024
Reliability of impedance spectroscopy versus digital radiograph and ICDAS-II in occlusal caries detection: a prospective clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emerging trends in the early diagnosis of dental caries: a scoping review of artificial intelligence, digital diagnostics, and teledentistry.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Classification Algorithms for Early Tooth Demineralization Assessment by Impedance Spectroscopy.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The traditional methods in early caries detection had many limitations. So, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of alternating current impedance spectroscopy ACIST in comparison with digital radiograph and ICDAS-II in detection of occlusal carious lesions. Occlusal surfaces of molar and premolar teeth from 40 adult participants were examined by two observers using three diagnostic methods: (1) international caries detection and assessment system (ICDAS-II) (2) digital radiograph (DR) and (3) Cariescan Pro device (ACIST). Agreement analysis and the difference in sensitivities and specificities were evaluated. The results showed an excellent agreement in the different groups. The difference from the visual tactile against ACIST scoring for enamel caries detection, was statistically significant (p = 0.012) and the agreement was moderate (k = 0.509). For dentinal caries the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) and the agreement was similarly moderate (k < 0.6). The difference from the digital radiograph against ACIST scoring, for enamel caries, digital radiography had significantly higher sensitivity and specificity than ACIST (p < 0.001) while for dentinal caries detection and overall, ACIST had higher sensitivity and digital radiography had higher specificity and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Visual-tactile examination is a considered as feasible and valid technique for occlusal caries detection, digital radiography is superior to ACIST in diagnosing enamel caries, but it could underestimate the caries depth, ACIST is a reliable tool for detecting occlusal caries in dentin.
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.