Ku Jason Chi-Kit, Mao Kaijing, Wang Feifei, Carreiro Adriana da Fonte Porto, Lam Walter Yu-Hang, Yu Ollie Yiru
Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, S.A.R., China.
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, S.A.R., China.
J Dent. 2025 Jun;157:105737. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105737. Epub 2025 Apr 7.
To evaluate the accuracy of visual caries detection using clinical photographs in comparison with visual clinical intraoral examination for the detection of dental caries.
This review followed PRISMA-DTA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024598814). Accuracy parameters of sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), area under summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and partial AUC (pAUC) were generated. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 tool.
Publications from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE databases.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS: Eighteen studies including 1300 participants were included in this review. Risks of bias and applicability concerns were frequently encountered in one or more domains. The pooled sensitivity (95 % Confidence Interval, CI), specificity (95 %CI), DOR (95 %CI) and AUC (pAUC) of the visual assessment of clinical photographs were 0.74 (0.70-0.77), 0.95 (0.88-0.98), 52.94 (22.13-126.66), and 0.813 (0.753) for enamel caries; 0.81 (0.75-0.86), 0.98 (0.94-0.99), 142.01 (67.50-298.77), and 0.935 (0.857) for dentine caries; 0.81 (0.70-0.89), 0.99 (0.96-1.00), 245.04 (83.75-716.96), and 0.957 (0.902) for any caries depth. Subgroup analysis suggested that caries depth (enamel caries v.s. dentine caries v.s. any caries depth; p = 0.072), dentition (primary v.s. permanent; p = 0.584 (dentine caries data), p = 0.923 (any caries data)), technology (smartphone camera v.s. intra-oral camera; p = 0.993), and photographer (dental professional v.s. layperson; p = 0.466) did not modify the diagnostic performance.
Visual assessment of clinical photographs for caries detection demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy when compared with visual clinical intraoral examination. High specificity values across diagnostic thresholds suggest a high level of accuracy in correctly identifying sound tooth structure.
Clinical photography is useful for dental caries detection and can facilitate clinical decision-making.
比较使用临床照片进行视觉龋病检测与口腔内视觉临床检查在检测龋齿方面的准确性。
本综述遵循PRISMA-DTA指南，并在PROSPERO（CRD42024598814）中注册。生成了敏感性、特异性和诊断比值比（DOR）、汇总接受者操作特征曲线下面积（AUC）和部分AUC（pAUC）等准确性参数。使用QUADAS-2工具评估偏倚风险。
来自PubMed、科学网、Scopus和EMBASE数据库的出版物。
研究选择/结果：本综述纳入了18项研究，共1300名参与者。在一个或多个领域经常遇到偏倚风险和适用性问题。临床照片视觉评估的合并敏感性（95%置信区间，CI）、特异性（95%CI）、DOR（95%CI）和AUC（pAUC），对于釉质龋分别为0.74（0.70-0.77）、0.95（0.88-0.98）、52.94（22.13-126.66）和0.813（0.753）；对于牙本质龋分别为0.81（0.75-0.86）、0.98（0.94-0.99）、142.01（67.50-298.77）和0.935（0.857）；对于任何龋深度分别为0.81（0.70-0.89）、0.99（0.96-1.00）、245.04（83.75-716.96）和0.957（0.90
