ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of laser fluorescence and conventional caries detection methods in children: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Background: Early detection of dental caries in children is essential for implementing preventive and minimally invasive treatment strategies. Laser fluorescence-based devices have been proposed as adjunctive diagnostic tools; however, their diagnostic accuracy compared with conventional methods remains uncertain. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of laser fluorescence devices compared with conventional visual and radiographic methods for caries detection in pediatric populations. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251274327). Electronic searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to December 2025. Clinical studies involving children (<18 years) that evaluated laser fluorescence devices for caries detection were included. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Where sufficient data were available, quantitative synthesis was performed using bivariate random-effects and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Quantitative meta-analysis was conducted for enamel-level (D1) and dentinal-level (D3) diagnostic thresholds. At the D1 threshold (8 studies), pooled sensitivity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.87) and specificity was 0.77 (95% CI 0.67-0.84), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86. At the D3 threshold (10 studies), pooled sensitivity was 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.85) and specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92), with an AUC of 0.81. Heterogeneity was influenced by lesion thresholds, dentition type, reference standards, and diagnostic protocols. Studies with higher risk of bias tended to report greater sensitivity estimates. Conclusion: Laser fluorescence devices demonstrate good sensitivity for detecting early carious lesions in children and may be useful adjuncts for preventive diagnosis and monitoring. However, variability in specificity and methodological heterogeneity across studies indicate that these devices should complement, rather than replace, conventional visual and radiographic examination. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251274327, identifier CRD420251274327.
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.