ReviewJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)2026
Teledentistry: Applications Across Dental Specialties: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Teledentistry is the use of digital communication technologies to provide remote dental care, which offers innovative solutions to enhance access, efficiency, and patient outcomes. Purpose: This article evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry compared to in-person gold-standard examinations, primarily in restorative dentistry. Materials and Method: A systematic search of literature was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Scopus databases, covering studies from 2015 and 2024. Due to methodological heterogeneity and limited comparable studies, meta-analysis was only feasible for the field of restorative dentistry, and other specialties were analyzed descriptively. Furthermore, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess bias, which manifested a moderate-to-low risk of bias. Results: The results of 4 studies in restorative dentistry demonstrated a moderate sensitivity of 77.2% (95% CI 62.5-87.4%) and a high specificity of 89.1% (95% CI 70.5-96.5%). While significant heterogeneity persisted (I² = 68% for sensitivity and 92% for specificity), sensitivity analyses confirmed robust pooled estimates unaffected by individual study removal. This was attributable to methodological variations in diagnostic thresholds and image capture protocols despite uniform smartphone photography. On the other hand, descriptive analysis of studies in other fields revealed variable diagnostic accuracy, with teledentistry showing promise in orthodontics and prosthodontics but limitations in endodontics. Conclusion: The findings suggest teledentistry as a useful diagnostic tool in restorative dentistry, though it is not yet a complete substitute for in-person examinations. However, the generalizability of these findings to other dental specialties remains low due to the lack of an adequate number of relevant studies. Moreover, insufficient data exist to support the positive role of artificial intelligence (AI) in combination with tele-dentistry. Therefore, future work should prioritize standardized AI-tele-dentistry validation and expand research across diverse specialties to strengthen evidence.
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.