ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Accuracy of visual and radiographic ICDAS-merged criteria for secondary caries on permanent posterior teeth.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This in vitro study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of visual and radiographic assessments for secondary caries (ICDAS-merged) on posterior permanent teeth. Material and Methods: Teeth were obtained from a university tooth bank and selected based on the presence of occlusal or proximal restorations. Two trained examiners assessed 296 restored surfaces using ICDAS-merged secondary caries criteria, grouping scores into sound (0), initial (1-2), moderate (3-4), and extensive (5-6). Scores were validated against a histological gold standard using three diagnostic thresholds: (1) sound vs. initial+moderate+extensive; (2) sound+initial vs. moderate+extensive; and (3) sound+initial+moderate vs. extensive. Analyses included Spearman correlation, weighted kappa, and calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Results: After sample evaluation included 129 premolar surfaces and 167 molar surfaces, restored either with amalgam (n = 194) or composite resin (n = 102). Both methods showed substantial inter- and intra-examiner reproducibility (kappa: 0.70-0.80). Correlation with histology was substantial for both visual (=0.73) and radiographic (=0.70) assessments. At the threshold of sound vs. initial+moderate+extensive, specificity was high (visual: 0.85; radiographic: 0.93), while sensitivity was higher for visual (0.80) than for radiographic criteria (0.68). Overall accuracy was high for both methods (visual: 0.83; radiographic: 0.81). Across restorative materials, visual assessment showed consistent accuracy for amalgam and composite restorations. In contrast, radiographic assessment showed lower sensitivity for amalgam (0.61) and composite (0.64) restorations at the same threshold. ICDAS-merged visual criteria demonstrated strong accuracy and reproducibility for detecting secondary caries in restored permanent teeth, regardless of restorative material. Conclusions: Radiographic criteria exhibited high specificity but lower sensitivity, particularly for early lesions, highlighting the value of visual inspection as a reliable method for detecting secondary caries in clinical settings.
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.