PubMed · 16568042
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Holmes. 2006-03-25. Missing the point.. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4813386
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a tool to improve dental caries detection across imaging modalities; however, its clinical value remains uncertain. This umbrella review aimed to synthesize and critically appraise systematic reviews evaluating AI for caries detection and diagnosis. An umbrella review was conducted following PRIOR guidance (PROSPERO CRD420261340728). Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to 15 March 2026. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and overlap of primary studies was quantified using the corrected covered area (CCA). Seventeen systematic reviews were included, of which five reported diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses using bivariate or HSROC models. Across these meta-analyses, pooled sensitivity ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 and specificity from 0.85 to 0.91. Most systems were based on deep learning models applied to bitewing radiographs and intraoral photographs. However, substantial heterogeneity was observed in imaging modalities, lesion thresholds, analytical tasks, and evaluation metrics. In addition, a high degree of overlap across reviews and recurrent methodological limitations, including reliance on retrospective datasets, limited external validation, and inconsistent reporting, substantially weaken the reliability of the evidence. Although AI models demonstrate high diagnostic performance under experimental conditions, current evidence does not support their use as stand-alone diagnostic tools. Their clinical applicability remains limited, and implementation should be restricted to decision-support contexts until robust prospective validation demonstrates meaningful impact on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: This study investigated the sealing ability of a current available unfilled fissure sealant applied over sound (n=80), artificially created (n=80) and naturally carious fissures (n=80) under different humidity conditions (90+/-2 and 45+/-2% relative humidity) and etching times (40 and 60s). All samples were submitted to 5000 thermal cycles and examined by light microscopy after sectioning. Microleakage, penetration ability, fissure type, fissure entrance angle, sealant occlusal length, caries location and caries depth were assessed. RESULTS: The significantly longer sealant occlusal length and larger entrance angle exhibited by shallow fissures, contributed to their higher microleakage and smaller amounts of unfilled areas compared to deep fissures. Sealant microleakage was significantly influenced by the condition of the enamel (sound, artificial and natural caries) and the caries location in the fissures, but not by enamel caries depth (D1 and D2), etching time, or humidity condition. Natural caries exhibited significantly higher microleakage than sound or artificially created carious fissures. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded that location of caries in the fissure rather than its depth should be taken into account when applying a fissure sealant. When the borders of the fissure sealant are on carious enamel, a significantly higher microleakage must be expected. The artificial caries model was not a suitable method to assess the behavior of natural fissure caries.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cavitation rate of proximal caries using different magnification aids in vitro. METHODS: Radiographs of 285 extracted teeth were taken and the proximal surfaces were graded to the criteria R0 (no radiolucency), R1 (radiolucency confined to the outer half of enamel), R2 (inner half of enamel) and R3 (outer half of dentin). Subsequently, the proximal surfaces were checked for the presence of cavitations with the naked eye (NE), and by using 4.3 x magnification eyeglasses (ME), a stereo microscope (SM, 10x), or a scanning electron microscope (SEM, up to 2000 x magnification). RESULTS: In surfaces with R3 caries, cavitations were visible in 56 of 59 cases with the naked eye. When using SEM, all surfaces revealed cavitations (100%). Regarding the surfaces with R2 lesion, 36 of 46 cases showed cavitations (NE); the corresponding values were 39/46 (ME), 41/46 (SM), and 46/46 (SEM); in the latter, in most cases deep defects could be observed. With regard to R1 lesions, 36/60 (NE), 43/60 (ME), 45/60 (SM), and 58/60 (SEM) cases revealed cavitations. A breakdown of radiographically sound surfaces (R0) was present in some 10% of the examined surfaces (24/261, NE; 33/261, SEM). CONCLUSIONS: Cavitations (defined as breakdown of the surface) are present in significantly more cases than previously reported. This might be an explanation why even small radiolucencies tend to progress, albeit slowly. Thus, close follow-ups should strongly be recommended when considering a preventive treatment regimen with small radiolucencies.