PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 1817873

[Difference reflectometry might permit process control for dental laser applications].

W H Raab·S M Rosiwal·K Reithmayer·H W Bergmann
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Difference reflectometry is a new method for assessing material surfaces by measuring the relative amount of light reflected within a range of 300-720 nm. The in vivo and in vitro results of the present study indicate that it is possible to transfer this measuring principle to dental applications. Reflexion measurements allow the detection of hard tooth structures and their pathologic alterations with adequate exactness. With the aid of this method it is possible to differentiate between carious hard tissues and clinically healthy tissues by color and surface structure during excavation. It also allows a reliable demarcation from oral soft tissues. Due to its high measuring frequency it may be used as on-line process control. In contrast to other spectrometric methods it requires a minimum of equipment and is easy to handle.

Explore related subjects

Dental CariesDental EnamelDentinHumansLightSpectrophotometryEnglish AbstractJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W H Raab, S M Rosiwal, K Reithmayer, H W Bergmann. 1991. [Difference reflectometry might permit process control for dental laser applications].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1817873/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence for dental caries detection: An umbrella review.

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.

Dental Caries↗