Observational studyClinical oral investigations2026
Diagnostic accuracy of QrayPen fluorescence scoring for secondary caries in repair-/replacement-indicated posterior composite restorations.
Observational study in Clinical oral investigations, 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
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the adjunctive diagnostic performance of QrayPen C fluorescence-image severity scoring (QS) for identifying same-site secondary caries in posterior composite restorations already selected for repair or replacement. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this single-centre prospectively conducted observational diagnostic-accuracy study, 102 patients were assessed; 14 declined participation and 5 were excluded because of non-interpretable QLF/clinical images. The final analysis included 83 adults and 120 repair-/replacement-indicated posterior composite restorations. Restorations were assessed using Nyvad criteria, bitewing ICCMS scoring, and QrayPen C imaging. QS was scored on a 0-3 scale and analysed at thresholds > 0, >1, and > 2. The reference standard was same-site dentin status after removal.
resultsSecondary caries was confirmed in 80/120 restorations (66.7%). For QS > 0, sensitivity was 85.0%, specificity 90.0%, accuracy 86.7%, LR + 8.50, and LR- 0.17. Patient-level clustered bootstrap analysis gave similar but wider estimates: sensitivity 85.0% (clustered 95% CI 75.9-92.8) and specificity 90.0% (clustered 95% CI 80.0-97.7). Higher QS thresholds increased specificity but reduced sensitivity.
conclusionsIn repair-/replacement-indicated restorations, QS > 0 may help localize suspicious areas and increase diagnostic confidence for same-site secondary caries, but the estimates apply to an enriched clinically problematic cohort. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: QrayPen QS should be interpreted as an adjunctive imaging-derived signal. QS positivity should not justify replacement in isolation, and QS = 0 should not be interpreted as evidence of sound dentin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42467381What 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.