ArticleBDJ open2025
Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners, intraoral cameras, radiographs, and histological methods for the diagnosis of dental caries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BDJ open, 2025. 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.
- Validation of 3D intraoral scanner use for detecting caries lesions around dental restorations: A diagnostic accuracy study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Impact of the 2018 periodontal classification on diagnosis, treatment strategies, and assessment of prognosis by dental hygienists in Swedish general dental care.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the relationship between visual examination and loupes usage in caries detection and dentists' fatigue levels: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
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
objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis compare the diagnostic accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) and intraoral cameras (IOC) against traditional radiographic and histological methods for caries detection. Due to variation in sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) among diagnostic tools, this study evaluated their performance based on lesion type, lesion location, and examiner-dependent factors.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using keyword-based search strings in Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source, following PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Studies comparing IOS or IOC to radiographic or histological reference standards were included. Three independent reviewers assessed study quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist, with disagreements resolved by discussion and Fleiss's kappa (κ) analysis. Meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled SE and SP. Subgroup analyses examined the impact of lesion type, lesion location, and examiner-dependent variabilities, using the Python programming language.
resultsTwenty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria, with 16 studies included in the meta-analysis. Pooled SE and SP of IOS and IOC were 50%, indicating moderate diagnostic accuracy. Radiographic methods had the highest SP, making them more effective at avoiding false positives. In contrast, IOSs and IOCs demonstrated higher SE for occlusal and dentin lesions, suggesting their utility in early caries detection. Lesion location significantly influenced diagnostic accuracy, with IOS and IOC showing superior SE for occlusal lesions but lower SE for supragingival lesions. Examiner-dependent differences in SE reached up to 32%, emphasizing the need for structured training and calibration protocols.
conclusionsIOSs and IOCs showed promise for early caries detection due to their higher SE for occlusal and dentin lesions. However, their lower SP compared to radiographic methods raises concerns about false positives. Standardized examiner training and improved diagnostic protocols are essential to enhance the reliability of these digital imaging techniques.
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.