ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Validation of 3D intraoral scanner use for detecting caries lesions around dental restorations: A diagnostic accuracy study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectivesThis study aimed to validate the use of a 3D intraoral scanner (IOS) for detecting secondary caries lesions around restorations using image-based CARS-derived severity categories, compared with visual-tactile clinical examination. MATERIALS AND
methodsA diagnostic validation study was conducted at the university clinical facilities, from July 2023 to September 2024, including adult patients with amalgam or composite resin restorations on anterior and posterior teeth. The restorations were assessed using visual-tactile clinical examination, adopted as the clinical reference standard, and IOS image-based assessment. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, binary-classification AUC, and clinical-IOS agreement were estimated. Confidence intervals for diagnostic accuracy measures were obtained using participant-level cluster bootstrap resampling.
resultsA total of 299 restorations in 41 patients were assessed. IOS sensitivity varied, with 75% (95% CI: 66.2-82.0) at the initial lesion threshold, 40% (95% CI: 20.8-57.7) at the moderate lesion threshold, and 57.1% (95% CI: 33.3-100.0) at the severe lesion threshold. Specificity was consistently high, with 84.1% (95% CI: 78.7-89.4), 97.4% (95% CI: 95.6-99.2), and 99.7% (95% CI: 98.7-99.7) at the initial, moderate, and severe lesion thresholds, respectively. Binary-classification AUC values were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.84), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58-0.78), and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66-1.00) at the initial, moderate, and severe lesion thresholds, respectively. Positive predictive value was highest at the severe lesion threshold (80%), while the negative predictive value was especially high at this threshold (99%). Exact clinical-IOS agreement was 77.9%, whereas linearly weighted observed agreement was 91.1%, with a linearly weighted kappa coefficient of 0.53.
conclusionsThe 3D intraoral scanner is a complementary tool for assessing secondary caries lesions, showing high specificity across lesion thresholds. Sensitivity varied according to lesion severity and was less precise at the severe threshold due to the small number of severe lesions. Future research should increase sample sizes and explore combining IOS with other diagnostic methods to improve detection, especially for moderate lesions and higher caries prevalence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Conventional IOS images may assist in documenting and assessing visible changes around restorations. Clinical interpretation should consider the observed sensitivity limitations and incorporate visual-tactile examination and radiographic assessment when indicated.
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.