ArticleCaries research2026
Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy for Caries Detection and Discrimination of Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
Article in Caries research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) is a proposed optical adjunct for caries detection, but its diagnostic accuracy against histology has not been validated alongside its ability to discriminate restorative materials. We aimed to validate DRS in vitro for both tasks.
methodsThis in vitro study comprised two arms. In part 1, 200 occlusal regions of interest from 100 extracted teeth were assessed by DRS (350-1,730 nm) and by two independent examiners using the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS), with histological scoring as the reference standard. In part 2, four freshly prepared restorative materials (45 sites each: a self-adhesive resin cement, two resin composites, a resin-modified glass-ionomer) were compared with 37 sound-enamel sites from a separate cohort (one site per tooth). Spectra were classified by partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) with specimen-grouped 10-fold cross-validation (sites from a specimen kept in one fold, preventing leakage).
resultsDRS reached 80.5% exact agreement with histology (quadratically weighted κ = 0.916, 95% CI: 0.890-0.939) versus 54.0-57.5% for the visual examiners. At the any-caries threshold (histological score ≥D1), DRS achieved sensitivity 90.8% (95% CI: 84.3-94.8) and specificity 95.0% (87.8-98.0), with four false-positive classifications of sound surfaces against 25 and 23 for ICDAS examiners. The DRS AUC (0.946) exceeded both examiners (0.908 and 0.914), reaching significance against one (DeLong test, p = 0.027). Sensitivity for dentin-level caries was low (37.5%). PLS-DA discriminated the five classes (four materials plus sound enamel) with overall accuracy 99.5% (95% CI: 97.4-99.9).
conclusionIn vitro, DRS showed markedly higher specificity than visual ICDAS scoring for occlusal caries and discriminated four freshly prepared restorative materials from sound enamel. Its low sensitivity for dentin-level lesions and the controlled laboratory conditions warrant cautious interpretation pending in vivo validation.
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.