PubMed · 8277048
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D N Dederich, K L Zakariasen. 1993. Laser use debated.. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1993.0244
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.
Glass-ionomer cements, both self-hardening and resin-modified, have been shown to increase the pH of lactic acid solutions in which they are stored. Similar results have been obtained for a zinc phosphate and a zinc polycarboxylate cement. The pH was increased over a period of 7 days by between 1.54 and 2.65 pH units from an initial value of pH of 2.60, depending on the cement. It is concluded that, as a result of this ability to neutralize surrounding aqueous solutions, these materials may have the beneficial effect in vivo of inhibiting caries development. In the case of glass-ionomers, this mechanism might complement that of fluoride release.
It is generally accepted that glass ionomers inhibit secondary caries in vivo, and data from in vitro studies support this effect. The aim of this review was a systematic assessment, from the literature, of clinical evidence for the ability of glass-ionomer restoratives to inhibit secondary caries at the restoration margin. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selection of the review papers were established prior to commencement of the literature search. Papers which conformed to these criteria, and reported on secondary caries as an outcome, were selected (N = 52). Primary and secondary lists of systematic criteria for use in the assessment of the papers were drawn up. The primary list of 14 criteria was applied to each paper. No paper fulfilled all these criteria, necessitating the use of the secondary measures: (i) a prospective study and (ii) use of an appropriate control. This yielded 28 papers. Tabulation of these papers by occurrence of secondary caries in the glass-ionomer or control groups demonstrated an even distribution between positive and negative outcomes. Valid evidence is considered to be best obtained from randomized, controlled studies of sufficient sample size. No conclusive evidence for or against a treatment effect of inhibition of secondary caries by the glass-ionomer restoratives was obtained from the systematic review. There is a need for appraisal of the methods currently adopted for the clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer restorative materials, and for further development of the methodology to support future systematic reviews.