ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Comparative evaluation of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems for intraoperative diagnosis during selective caries removal: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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.
- Fluorescence-aided caries excavation in minimally invasive dentistry: a scoping review.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Getting your publication right - Part 2 - Structuring a research manuscript: A guide to writing a case report.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Selective caries removal aims to preserve pulp vitality and tooth structure by eliminating only infected dentin. Caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence devices are the main diagnostic tools supporting this minimally invasive approach. Objective: To evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance, benefits, and limitations of these two modalities. Additionally, it examines potential synergies with magnification tools and proposes future directions for clinical protocol development. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of 124 articles screened, four met the inclusion criteria for direct comparison of caries detector dyes and laser fluorescence systems. Diagnostic accuracy, clinical outcomes, and bias risk (ROBINS-I/ROBINS-E) were assessed. Results: All four studies supported the effectiveness of both techniques in selective caries removal. Laser fluorescence devices showed higher sensitivity (ranging from 0.76 to 0.92) and specificity (0.74 to 0.88), along with better accuracy in detecting infected dentin compared to dyes. Dyes were noted for ease of use but showed greater variability in outcomes. Risk of bias ranged from low to moderate across studies. Conclusions: Laser fluorescence systems appear to be more reliable for intraoperative caries detection during selective caries removal. Nevertheless, a combined diagnostic approach, particularly with magnification, may optimize outcomes. These findings support the integration of fluorescence systems in caries management protocols. Further clinical trials are needed to validate these findings and develop standardized, evidence-based protocols.
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.