Table 4.
Quality of the evidence according to GRADE.
| Outcomes (% accuracy per tooth type) | No. of teeth (studies) Follow-up | Quality of the evidence (GRADE)* | Relative effect (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maxillary central incisors | 99 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate† due to large effect |
54.5 (47.6–61.4) |
| Maxillary lateral incisors | 99 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low†‡ due to inconsistency, large effect |
51.5 (30.1–72.8) |
| Maxillary canines | 122 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low†‡ due to inconsistency, large effect |
47.9 (27.2–69.5) |
| Maxillary premolars | 108 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low†‡ due to inconsistency, large effect |
64.4 (44.9–84.0) |
| Mandibular incisors | 131 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate† due to large effect |
70.7 (58.9–82.5) |
| Mandibular canines | 120 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low†‡ due to inconsistency, large effect |
49.9 (20.5–79.3) |
| Mandibular premolars | 115 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderate† due to large effect |
67.0 (52.2–81.8) |
*
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
†
Large effect.
‡
High heterogeneity levels.
CI, confidence interval.