PubMed · 6964404
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
B J Heinenberg, S Heinenberg. 1982. [Basic knowledge: tooth conservation information (II)].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6964404/
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.
Due to their inertness and unsurpassed aesthetic properties, ceramic materials are increasingly used as inlay materials. Based on a questionnaire, the frequency and character of complications related to ceramic inlay therapy were assessed and some important pitfalls and clinical relevant factors discussed. A majority of the dentists performed between 1 and 10 ceramic inlays per month using several different ceramic materials. As many as 85% of the dentists had observed complications in connection with ceramic inlays. Most frequency reported was hypersensitivity of a transient nature (15%). The material revealed an overall inlay fracture frequency of 5%, but the individual variations were high. Tooth fracture, loss of retention and other complications such as secondary caries, endodontic envolvement, colour mismatch and a surface and edge deterioration occurred with a varying but lower frequency. Failure analysis revealed a large number of causative factors among which cavity and inlay design, bonding procedures, selection of luting material and proper case selection were regarded as the most important. Due consideration to the strength of remaining tooth substance was found to be important in reducing the problem of hypersensitivity and the risk of tooth and inlay fracture.
Opinions on the role of the pulp in the status of dental enamel in health and caries are contradictory. Three parameters are discussed: the notion of a normal enamel, the initiation of a carious process, and prediction of the disease course. The third aspect of the discussion is touched upon in this paper: prediction of caries. The enamel resistance test (ERT) is suggested to be used for caries prediction, although its value is denied by some authors. The author of this paper advocates wide use of prophylactic measures, no matter what the results of ERT are.