ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative assessment of occlusal and proximal caries detection using an intraoral scanner and panoramic radiography.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, fluorescence-based caries detection has been integrated into intraoral scanners as a radiation-free adjunctive tool for caries assessment. However, evidence regarding the agreement of these systems with conventional diagnostic methods remains limited. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the agreement among panoramic radiography, the fluorescence-based caries detection mode of the TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner, and ICDAS (International Caries Detection and Assessment System)-based on-screen assessment of digital intraoral scan images in the detection and classification of occlusal and approximal carious lesions.
methodsSixty patients aged 16-45 years who met the inclusion criteria were included. Archived panoramic radiographs and TRIOS 5 (3Shape TRIOS A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark) intraoral scan records were retrospectively evaluated. Permanent teeth were analyzed. Panoramic radiographic findings were classified as Score 0 (sound), Score 1 (initial lesion), and Score 2 (deep dentin lesion). The fluorescence-based caries detection mode of the TRIOS 5 classified lesions as initial, moderate/extensive, or insufficient scan. Archived intraoral scan images were also visually assessed using an on-screen ICDAS-based protocol. Inter-method agreement was evaluated using Gwet's AC1/AC2, Fleiss' kappa, and Krippendorff's alpha coefficients. McNemar's test and complementary mixed-effects logistic regression were used for pairwise comparisons. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios were also calculated. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsThe fluorescence-based caries detection mode of the TRIOS 5 classified a higher proportion of teeth as having occlusal and enamel-limited lesions, whereas panoramic radiography classified a higher proportion as having approximal and deep dentin lesions. Agreement between TRIOS 5 and the on-screen ICDAS-based assessment was higher than that between TRIOS 5 and panoramic radiography, although overall agreement among the three methods remained low. In subgroup analyses, agreement between TRIOS 5 and the visual assessment was higher for molars than for premolars.
conclusionsThe fluorescence-based caries detection mode of the TRIOS 5 intraoral scanner provided diagnostic information complementary to panoramic radiography. Further prospective studies using independent reference standards are required to confirm its clinical performance.
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.