ArticleBMC oral health2025
Assessment of two novel methods for detecting non-cavitated, smooth surface enamel lesions: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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.
- Quantum-inspired fused explainable deep learning framework for early enamel caries classification in intraoral photographs.Odontology · 2026Article
- Ability of BlueCheck Liquid for Detection of Initial Lesions on Occlusal Surfaces In Vitro.Diagnostics (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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to compare two new non-cavitated caries lesion detector methods, LumiCare (LC) and BlueCheck (BC), to each other and to the traditional visual/tactile method (TM) of non-cavitated enamel caries lesion detection on smooth surface lesions.
methodsIn this non-inferiority study, forty extracted human teeth with International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) level 1 and 2 smooth-surface lesions were evaluated in standard operatory conditions by three ICDAS-trained dentists using the traditional visual and tactile method, the LumiCare method, and the BlueCheck method of detection. For each endpoint of Sensitivity (Se) and Specificity (Sp), a generalized mixed model was fitted with positive (negative) agreement (yes/no) as the outcome and method (LC or BC), evaluator and evaluator *method included as fixed effects.
resultsStatistical analysis shows that the LumiCare and BlueCheck methods of detection are substantially equivalent and compare favorably to the traditional method of lesion detection. Inter-rater reliability and intra-rater reliability ratings were moderate to good.
conclusionsThis study supports the indications for use for both LumiCare and BlueCheck as aids to visualization of early carious lesions. LumiCare and BlueCheck are substantially equivalent to each other in their ability to differentiate between demineralized enamel and sound enamel. Each may help to educate patients, monitor lesion progression following re-mineralizing therapy, and train beginning dentists in the use of ICDAS.
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.