ArticleBMC oral health2025
An in vitro comparison of different caries-detection methods in primary-molars.
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.
- Article
- Quantum-inspired fused explainable deep learning framework for early enamel caries classification in intraoral photographs.Odontology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe early and accurate detection of occlusal caries in primary molars is critical to prevent its progression, as primary teeth are more susceptible to rapid carious development. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of various caries detection methods, in detecting occlusal caries in primary molars.
methodsA total of 88 freshly extracted primary molar teeth were included in this in vitro study. The teeth were assessed using four diagnostic methods: International Caries Detection and Assessment System II (ICDAS), Midwest Caries I.D (MW), DIAGNOdent pen (LFpen) and Quantitative-Light-Induced-Fluorescence (QLF). The performance of the method was evaluated by two examiners at two separate time points. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for both the enamel (D1) and dentin (D3) thresholds. Histological evaluation was performed as the gold standard for comparison. Interexaminer and intraexaminer reproducibility were assessed using Cohen's weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients.
resultsAt the enamel caries threshold (D1), MW achieved the highest sensitivity (61.7-76.6%), while QLF exhibited the highest specificity (92.5%). For dentin caries (D3), LFpen had the highest sensitivity (p < 0.05), whereas ICDAS achieved 100% specificity. LFpen demonstrated the best overall diagnostic accuracy, with AUC values ranging from 0.823 to 0.875. Interexaminer reproducibility was highest for LFpen (ICC: 0.719-0.869), followed by ICDAS (kappa: 0.584-0.932).
conclusionLF pen showed the highest overall AUC and the greatest sensitivity at the D3 threshold. At the D1 threshold, Midwest Caries ID achieved the highest sensitivity, whereas QLF yielded the highest specificity, minimizing false positives. ICDAS remains a practical, cost-effective option for routine clinical use.
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.