Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Assessment of two methods for detecting carious dentin: an in vitro study.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Ability of BlueCheck Liquid for Detection of Initial Lesions on Occlusal Surfaces In Vitro.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Correction: Assessment of two methods for detecting carious dentin: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to compare, in vitro, two dentinal caries lesion detector methods, Caries Finder and BlueCheck, to determine if they were substantially equivalent in their ability to aid visualization of demineralized dentin and to also to compare their performance compared to the traditional visual/tactile method of dentinal caries lesion detection in vitro.
methodsSixty-five extracted human teeth containing lesions rated as ICDAS 4,5 or 6 were chosen and then randomly assigned to two groups. Specimens were then evaluated in standard operatory conditions by three evaluators using the traditional visual and tactile method, the Caries Finder method, and the BlueCheck method of detection. The study employed a parallel, randomized controlled study design. To test the equivalence claim, a "two-one sided test" (TOST) approach was utilized.
resultsAs compared to the traditional method, the Caries Finder method had a 0.9742 accuracy, 95% confidence interval [0.9578, 0.9855], 94.80% sensitivity, 98.53% specificity, 96.47% positive predictive value, 97.82% negative predictive value, 0.938 Kappa value, p < 2.2e-16). The BlueCheck method had a 0.9821 accuracy, 95% confidence interval [0.9682, 0.9910], 96.02% sensitivity, 99.09% specificity, 97.69% positive predictive value, 98.42% negative predictive value, 0.956 Kappa value, p < 2.2e-16). Inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability ratings were good to excellent.
conclusionsThe results of this study support the conclusion that the Caries Finder and BlueCheck methods compare favorably with the traditional method of carious dentin detection. Caries Finder and BlueCheck detection methods were found to have comparable performance in their ability to differentiate carious dentin from healthy tooth structure in vitro; however further in vivo validation is required to confirm clinical equivalence. Both show good to excellent inter-rater and intra-rater reliability.
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.