ArticleBMC oral health2026
Paired in vivo diagnostic accuracy and reliability of QrayCam Pro and QrayPen for occlusal and proximal caries in permanent posterior teeth.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) provides fluorescence-loss and red-fluorescence signals that may behave differently across devices, surfaces, and lesion thresholds. This study compared QrayCam Pro and QrayPen for occlusal and proximal caries in permanent posterior teeth.
methodsIn this single-centre, paired in vivo diagnostic-accuracy and reliability study, 120 consecutively recruited adults underwent QrayPen and QrayCam Pro imaging. Multiple surfaces could be contributed by one participant. Surface-specific regions of interest in QA2 software generated maximum fluorescence loss (|ΔFmax|) and maximum red fluorescence (ΔRmax). Occlusal surfaces were classified using ICDAS and proximal surfaces using bitewing-based International Caries Classification and Management System (ICCMS)-oriented categories. Agreement was evaluated on 194 occlusal and 397 proximal paired measurements. Diagnostic analyses included 181 occlusal surfaces with complete ICDAS scores and all 397 proximal surfaces. AUC confidence intervals and paired AUC contrasts were estimated by 10,000 participant-cluster bootstrap resamples; Holm adjustment was applied across four paired contrasts within each surface-threshold family.
resultsAt ICDAS ≥ 1, QrayCam |ΔFmax| and QrayPen |ΔFmax| yielded AUCs of 0.909 (95% CI 0.862-0.950) and 0.872 (0.821-0.919), respectively; |ΔFmax| exceeded ΔRmax within both devices (Holm-adjusted P < 0.001), whereas the QrayCam-QrayPen |ΔFmax| difference did not remain significant after multiplicity correction (adjusted P = 0.061). At proximal ICCMS ≥ 1, AUCs ranged from 0.646 to 0.697 and no paired contrast was significant after adjustment. QrayPen |ΔFmax| exceeded QrayPen ΔRmax at ICCMS ≥ 2 (adjusted P = 0.022) and ≥ 3 (adjusted P = 0.005); at ICCMS ≥ 3, QrayCam ΔRmax exceeded QrayPen ΔRmax (adjusted P = 0.011). Excluding the verified QrayPen ΔRmax value of 1962 changed individual proximal AUCs by no more than 0.012.
conclusionsMetric selection influenced diagnostic performance at selected thresholds, but it was not uniformly more important than device selection. |ΔFmax| was more consistent for early occlusal detection and selected proximal thresholds, while device differences were generally small or threshold-specific. QLF should be used as an adjunct to structured visual examination and bitewing radiography rather than as a replacement.
trial registrationNot applicable; this was an observational diagnostic-accuracy study and was not prospectively registered.
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.