Cargando…

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries

AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of commonly used caries detection methods for proximal caries diagnostics. Visual examination (VE), bitewing radiography (BWR), laser fluorescence (LF), and fibre-optic transillumination (FOTI) were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Janjic Rankovic, Mila, Kapor, Svetlana, Khazaei, Yegane, Crispin, Alexander, Schüler, Ina, Krause, Felix, Ekstrand, Kim, Michou, Stavroula, Eggmann, Florin, Lussi, Adrian, Huysmans, Marie-Charlotte, Neuhaus, Klaus, Kühnisch, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8531083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34480645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04113-1
_version_ 1784586779779661824
author Janjic Rankovic, Mila
Kapor, Svetlana
Khazaei, Yegane
Crispin, Alexander
Schüler, Ina
Krause, Felix
Ekstrand, Kim
Michou, Stavroula
Eggmann, Florin
Lussi, Adrian
Huysmans, Marie-Charlotte
Neuhaus, Klaus
Kühnisch, Jan
author_facet Janjic Rankovic, Mila
Kapor, Svetlana
Khazaei, Yegane
Crispin, Alexander
Schüler, Ina
Krause, Felix
Ekstrand, Kim
Michou, Stavroula
Eggmann, Florin
Lussi, Adrian
Huysmans, Marie-Charlotte
Neuhaus, Klaus
Kühnisch, Jan
author_sort Janjic Rankovic, Mila
collection PubMed
description AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of commonly used caries detection methods for proximal caries diagnostics. Visual examination (VE), bitewing radiography (BWR), laser fluorescence (LF), and fibre-optic transillumination (FOTI) were considered in detail. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PRISMA guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were applied. The mnemonic PIRDS (problem, index test, reference test, diagnostic and study type) concept was used to guide the literature search. Next, studies that met the inclusion criteria were stepwise selected and evaluated for their quality with a risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool. Studies with low/moderate bias and sufficient reporting were considered for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: From 129 studies meeting the selection criteria, 31 in vitro studies and five clinical studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. The AUC values for in vitro VE amounted to 0.84 (caries detection) and 0.85 (dentin caries detection). BWR ranged in vitro from 0.55 to 0.82 (caries detection) and 0.81–0.92 (dentin caries detection). LF showed higher AUC values for overall caries detection (0.91) and dentin caries detection (0.83) than did other methods. Clinical data are limited. CONCLUSION: The number of diagnostic studies with low/moderate RoB was found to be low and indicates a need for high-quality, well-designed caries diagnostic studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BWR and LF showed good diagnostic performance on proximal surfaces. However, because of the low number of includable clinical studies, these data should be interpreted with caution. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-021-04113-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8531083
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85310832021-11-04 Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries Janjic Rankovic, Mila Kapor, Svetlana Khazaei, Yegane Crispin, Alexander Schüler, Ina Krause, Felix Ekstrand, Kim Michou, Stavroula Eggmann, Florin Lussi, Adrian Huysmans, Marie-Charlotte Neuhaus, Klaus Kühnisch, Jan Clin Oral Investig Review AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of commonly used caries detection methods for proximal caries diagnostics. Visual examination (VE), bitewing radiography (BWR), laser fluorescence (LF), and fibre-optic transillumination (FOTI) were considered in detail. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PRISMA guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses were applied. The mnemonic PIRDS (problem, index test, reference test, diagnostic and study type) concept was used to guide the literature search. Next, studies that met the inclusion criteria were stepwise selected and evaluated for their quality with a risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool. Studies with low/moderate bias and sufficient reporting were considered for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the ROC curve (AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: From 129 studies meeting the selection criteria, 31 in vitro studies and five clinical studies were finally included in the meta-analysis. The AUC values for in vitro VE amounted to 0.84 (caries detection) and 0.85 (dentin caries detection). BWR ranged in vitro from 0.55 to 0.82 (caries detection) and 0.81–0.92 (dentin caries detection). LF showed higher AUC values for overall caries detection (0.91) and dentin caries detection (0.83) than did other methods. Clinical data are limited. CONCLUSION: The number of diagnostic studies with low/moderate RoB was found to be low and indicates a need for high-quality, well-designed caries diagnostic studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BWR and LF showed good diagnostic performance on proximal surfaces. However, because of the low number of includable clinical studies, these data should be interpreted with caution. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-021-04113-1. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-09-04 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8531083/ /pubmed/34480645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04113-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review
Janjic Rankovic, Mila
Kapor, Svetlana
Khazaei, Yegane
Crispin, Alexander
Schüler, Ina
Krause, Felix
Ekstrand, Kim
Michou, Stavroula
Eggmann, Florin
Lussi, Adrian
Huysmans, Marie-Charlotte
Neuhaus, Klaus
Kühnisch, Jan
Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries
title Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries
title_full Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries
title_fullStr Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries
title_short Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries
title_sort systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic studies of proximal surface caries
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8531083/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34480645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04113-1
work_keys_str_mv AT janjicrankovicmila systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT kaporsvetlana systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT khazaeiyegane systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT crispinalexander systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT schulerina systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT krausefelix systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT ekstrandkim systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT michoustavroula systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT eggmannflorin systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT lussiadrian systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT huysmansmariecharlotte systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT neuhausklaus systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries
AT kuhnischjan systematicreviewandmetaanalysisofdiagnosticstudiesofproximalsurfacecaries