Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Aug;43(8):924-33.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.009. Epub 2015 Feb 24.

Radiographic caries detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Radiographic caries detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Falk Schwendicke et al. J Dent. 2015 Aug.

Erratum in

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review aimed at evaluating the accuracy of radiographic caries detection for different lesions at different locations.

Data: Studies reporting on the accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) of radiographic detection of natural primary caries lesions under clinical or in vitro conditions were included. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Analyses were performed separately for occlusal and proximal lesions, with further discrimination between any kind of lesions, dentine lesions, and cavitated lesions.

Sources: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central) and grey literature were systematically searched, complemented by cross-referencing from bibliographies.

Study selection: From 947 identified articles, 442 were analyzed full-text. 117 studies (13,375 teeth, 19,108 surfaces) were included, the majority of them reporting on permanent teeth and having high risk of bias. The detection of any kind (i.e. also initial) lesions had low sensitivities (pooled DOR [95% CI]: 0.24 [0.21/0.26] to 0.42 [0.31/0.34]), but moderate to high specificities (0.70 [0.76/0.84] to 0.97 [0.95/0.98]). For dentine lesions, sensitivities were higher (from 0.36 [0.24/0.49] for proximal to 0.56 [0.53/0.59] for occlusal lesions), and specificities ranged between 0.87 [0.85/0.89] and 0.95 [0.94/0.96]. No studies reported on cavitated occlusal lesions, whilst for cavitated proximal lesions, sensitivities increased above 0.60, whilst sensitivities remained high (above 0.90).

Conclusions: Radiographic caries detection is highly accurate for cavitated proximal lesions, and seems also suitable to detect dentine caries lesions. For detecting initial lesions, more sensitive methods could be considered in population with high caries risk and prevalence.

Clinical significance: Radiographic caries detection is especially suitable for detecting more advanced caries lesions, and has limited risks for false positive diagnoses. For groups with high caries risk and prevalence, alternative detection methods with higher sensitivity for initial lesions might be considered.

Keywords: Bitewing; Caries; Dental; Radiography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources