SynthesisScientific reports2025
Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence in detecting caries of various types and locations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paired in vivo diagnostic accuracy and reliability of QrayCam Pro and QrayPen for occlusal and proximal caries in permanent posterior teeth.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Photonic Methods for the Assessment of Lesion Activity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Association between red biofluorescence and microbial dysbiosis in cariogenic biofilms: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- AI-assisted age estimation from occlusal tooth wear using biofluorescence imaging.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) in detecting dental caries of varying lesion severities, surfaces, and dentition types, across both in vitro and in vivo studies. Data extracted included study characteristics, diagnostic outcomes (sensitivity, specificity, AUC), caries types, lesion thresholds (ICDAS), and QLF parameters (ΔF, ΔR). Enamel lesions were stratified into incipient (ICDAS 1–2) and advanced stages (ICDAS 3), with dentin caries defined as ICDAS 4 or greater. A comprehensive search of Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted up to May 2023, without language restrictions. Manual reference screening was performed to identify additional relevant studies. Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria, which included evaluating QLF against reference standards (ICDAS, radiography, histology) and reporting diagnostic measures. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis included studies with extractable or inferable 2 × 2 contingency data. QLF demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing sound surfaces from enamel and dentin lesions, with in vivo Area Under the Curve (AUC) values for incipient occlusal lesions ranging from 0.94 to 0.98. The technology showed high pooled sensitivity and specificity for both occlusal (in vivo: 0.86/0.82) and approximal caries (in vivo: 0.74/0.82), confirming its effectiveness for early-stage detection.
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.