Journal of dentistry · 2024
Accuracy of detection methods for secondary caries around direct restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ku Jason Chi-Kit, Lam Walter Yu-Hang, Li Kar Yan, Hsung Richard Tai-Chiu, Chu Chun-Hung, Yu Ollie Yiru
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of detection methods for the diagnosis of secondary caries around direct restorations in posterior teeth.
DATA: Accuracy parameters including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under curve (AUC), and partial AUC (pAUC) are generated from studies assessing the accuracy of detection methods for secondary caries.
SOURCES: Publications from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS: This review included 25 studies evaluating visual examination (V(laboratory); n = 9 & V(clinical); n = 2), tactile examination (T; n = 3), intra-oral radiography (IR; n = 14), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT; n = 4), quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF; n = 4), laser fluorescence (LF; n = 8) and digital imaging fiber-optic transillumination (DIFOTI; n = 1). The pooled sensitivity [95 % Confidence Interval, CI] and specificity [95 % CI] of detection methods for secondary caries were 0.60[0.45-0.73] and 0.67[0.53-0.78] for V(laboratory); 0.82[0.23-0.99] and 0.77[0.15-0.98] for V(clinical); 0.31[0.25-0.39] and 0.95[0.78-0.99] for T; 0.59[0.52-0.66] and 0.82[0.75-0.88] for IR; 0.61[0.48-0.73] and 0.82[0.64-0.92] for CBCT; 0.71[0.64-0.78] and 0.51[0.40-0.62] for QLF; 0.57[0.43-0.71] and 0.81[0.76-0.85] for LF; and 0.63[0.47-0.76] and 0.95[0.90-0.98] for DIFOTI. DOR values [95 % CI] of the secondary caries detection methods were V(laboratory)-2.88[2.18-3.80]; V(clinical)-16.66[3.84-72.28]; T-6.36[1.12-36.28]; IR-6.55[3.44-12.46]; CBCT-6.18[1.42-26.91]; QLF-2.25[1.39-3.63]; LF-4.86[2.40-9.82]; and DIFOTI-30.00[11.94-75.36], respectively. Respective AUC (pAUC) were V-0.645(0.535); T-0.379(0.315); IR-0.767(0.693); CBCT-0.887(0.820); QLF-0.581(0.633) and LF-0.828(0.590). AUC values were not available for DIFOTI and V(clinical).
CONCLUSIONS: Among the seven types of detection method for secondary caries diagnosis, none of the detection methods demonstrate satisfactory accuracy in detecting secondary caries around direct restorations in posterior teeth.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review provides insights for the clinician and researcher in selecting the clinical detection method for secondary caries diagnosis and facilitates clinical decision making.
DATA: Accuracy parameters including sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under curve (AUC), and partial AUC (pAUC) are generated from studies assessing the accuracy of detection methods for secondary caries.
SOURCES: Publications from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS: This review included 25 studies evaluating visual examination (V(laboratory); n = 9 & V(clinical); n = 2), tactile examination (T; n = 3), intra-oral radiography (IR; n = 14), cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT; n = 4), quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF; n = 4), laser fluorescence (LF; n = 8) and digital imaging fiber-optic transillumination (DIFOTI; n = 1). The pooled sensitivity [95 % Confidence Interval, CI] and specificity [95 % CI] of detection methods for secondary caries were 0.60[0.45-0.73] and 0.67[0.53-0.78] for V(laboratory); 0.82[0.23-0.99] and 0.77[0.15-0.98] for V(clinical); 0.31[0.25-0.39] and 0.95[0.78-0.99] for T; 0.59[0.52-0.66] and 0.82[0.75-0.88] for IR; 0.61[0.48-0.73] and 0.82[0.64-0.92] for CBCT; 0.71[0.64-0.78] and 0.51[0.40-0.62] for QLF; 0.57[0.43-0.71] and 0.81[0.76-0.85] for LF; and 0.63[0.47-0.76] and 0.95[0.90-0.98] for DIFOTI. DOR values [95 % CI] of the secondary caries detection methods were V(laboratory)-2.88[2.18-3.80]; V(clinical)-16.66[3.84-72.28]; T-6.36[1.12-36.28]; IR-6.55[3.44-12.46]; CBCT-6.18[1.42-26.91]; QLF-2.25[1.39-3.63]; LF-4.86[2.40-9.82]; and DIFOTI-30.00[11.94-75.36], respectively. Respective AUC (pAUC) were V-0.645(0.535); T-0.379(0.315); IR-0.767(0.693); CBCT-0.887(0.820); QLF-0.581(0.633) and LF-0.828(0.590). AUC values were not available for DIFOTI and V(clinical).
CONCLUSIONS: Among the seven types of detection method for secondary caries diagnosis, none of the detection methods demonstrate satisfactory accuracy in detecting secondary caries around direct restorations in posterior teeth.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This systematic review provides insights for the clinician and researcher in selecting the clinical detection method for secondary caries diagnosis and facilitates clinical decision making.