TY - JOUR
T1 - Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis
T2 - An Analysis of Systematic Reviews
AU - Walsh, T.
AU - Macey, R.
AU - Ricketts, D.
AU - Carrasco Labra, A.
AU - Worthington, H.
AU - Sutton, A. J.
AU - Freeman, S.
AU - Glenny, A. M.
AU - Riley, P.
AU - Clarkson, J.
AU - Cerullo, E.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant 16/114/23: “Detection and Diagnosis of Common Oral Diseases: Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Tests of Oral Cancer and Caries”). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Publisher Copyright:
© International Association for Dental Research and American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research 2021.
PY - 2022/3/1
Y1 - 2022/3/1
N2 - Detection and diagnosis of caries—typically undertaken through a visual-tactile examination, often with supporting radiographic investigations—is commonly regarded as being broadly effective at detecting caries that has progressed into dentine and reached a threshold where restoration is necessary. With earlier detection comes an opportunity to stabilize disease or even remineralize the tooth surface, maximizing retention of tooth tissue and preventing a lifelong cycle of restoration. We undertook a formal comparative analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of different technologies to detect and inform the diagnosis of early caries using published Cochrane systematic reviews. Forming the basis of our comparative analysis were 5 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews evaluating fluorescence, visual or visual-tactile classification systems, imaging, transillumination and optical coherence tomography, and electrical conductance or impedance technologies. Acceptable reference standards included histology, operative exploration, or enhanced visual assessment (with or without tooth separation) as appropriate. We conducted 2 analyses based on study design: a fully within-study, within-person analysis and a network meta-analysis based on direct and indirect comparisons. Nineteen studies provided data for the fully within-person analysis and 64 studies for the network meta-analysis. Of the 5 technologies evaluated, the greatest pairwise differences were observed in summary sensitivity points for imaging and all other technologies, but summary specificity points were broadly similar. For both analyses, the wide 95% prediction intervals indicated the uncertainty of future diagnostic accuracy across all technologies. The certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and indirectness. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy for most technologies indicate that the degree of certitude with which a decision is made regarding the presence or absence of disease may be enhanced with the use of such devices. However, given the broad prediction intervals, it is challenging to predict their accuracy in any future “real world” context.
AB - Detection and diagnosis of caries—typically undertaken through a visual-tactile examination, often with supporting radiographic investigations—is commonly regarded as being broadly effective at detecting caries that has progressed into dentine and reached a threshold where restoration is necessary. With earlier detection comes an opportunity to stabilize disease or even remineralize the tooth surface, maximizing retention of tooth tissue and preventing a lifelong cycle of restoration. We undertook a formal comparative analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of different technologies to detect and inform the diagnosis of early caries using published Cochrane systematic reviews. Forming the basis of our comparative analysis were 5 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews evaluating fluorescence, visual or visual-tactile classification systems, imaging, transillumination and optical coherence tomography, and electrical conductance or impedance technologies. Acceptable reference standards included histology, operative exploration, or enhanced visual assessment (with or without tooth separation) as appropriate. We conducted 2 analyses based on study design: a fully within-study, within-person analysis and a network meta-analysis based on direct and indirect comparisons. Nineteen studies provided data for the fully within-person analysis and 64 studies for the network meta-analysis. Of the 5 technologies evaluated, the greatest pairwise differences were observed in summary sensitivity points for imaging and all other technologies, but summary specificity points were broadly similar. For both analyses, the wide 95% prediction intervals indicated the uncertainty of future diagnostic accuracy across all technologies. The certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and indirectness. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy for most technologies indicate that the degree of certitude with which a decision is made regarding the presence or absence of disease may be enhanced with the use of such devices. However, given the broad prediction intervals, it is challenging to predict their accuracy in any future “real world” context.
KW - evidence-based dentistry
KW - fluorescence
KW - radiography
KW - statistics, sensitivity and specificity
KW - transillumination
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85116875170&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/00220345211042795
DO - 10.1177/00220345211042795
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34636266
AN - SCOPUS:85116875170
SN - 0022-0345
VL - 101
SP - 261
EP - 269
JO - Journal of Dental Research
JF - Journal of Dental Research
IS - 3
ER -