ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2026
Can teledentistry be used as an alternative to in-person examinations for the detection of dental caries in pandemic?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onCasas K, DiPede L, Toema S, Ogwo C. Assessing Teledentistry versus In-Person Examinations to Detect Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JDR Clinical & Translational Research. 2025;11(1):4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844251320974
designA systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry compared to in-person examinations for detecting dental caries in primary and permanent dentition. The authors conducted a search in PubMed and CINAHL via EBSCOhost and followed the PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy) guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative studies, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, that used DMFT/S or ICDAS indices and reported sensitivity and specificity as diagnostic parameters were considered eligible. Only studies published in English between January 2013 and December 2021 were included. Studies that did not meet these criteria were excluded. DATA ANALYSIS: QUADAS-2 and JBI checklists were used for risk of bias and critical appraisal. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects approach was applied to conduct the univariate meta-analysis. Forest plots were generated for included studies, and sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and Higgins's I² to evaluate the variation across studies and the consistency of the results.
resultsTwelve studies reported sensitivity of 45.6-88.3% and specificity of 55.2-98.3% for teledentistry in caries detection. Accuracy ranged from 70% to 96%, and PPV/NPV were 79-92% and 48-97%, respectively. Heterogeneity was low (I² = 24%), and the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model estimated a diagnostic odds ratio of 35.14, indicating high diagnostic performance.
conclusionsTeledentistry can be considered a method comparable to in-person examinations for diagnosing dental caries.
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.