Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 27;2021(1):CD013855. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013855

Nakagawa 2013.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Method of sampling: "arbitrarily chosen for investigation"
Included conditions: no cavitation and early lesions; "visible localized enamel surface discoloration (white, brown/black) or cavitated carious lesions involving an axial smooth enamel surface", therefore an attempt to have no sound surfaces
Teeth: not reported
Sealants: not reported
Restorations: not reported
Surface: smooth
Patient characteristics and setting Age: not reported
Sex: not reported
Ethnicity: not reported
Country: Japan
Setting: extracted teeth
Number of participants/teeth/sites: 93 teeth, 127 sites
Prevalence: enamel 0.75, dentine 0.31
Index tests Category of test: SS‐OCT
Sequence of test(s): index tests performed (visual, SS‐OCT) prior to reference standard; "Visual examination and SS‐OCT evaluations were performed in separate sessions and after shuffling the order of appearance for each case to ensure there was no interference from the previous observations"
Examiner training and calibration: 4 dentists, 2 with 9 years experience trained the other 2, with calibration
Threshold applied: sound, enamel demineralisation without surface breakdown, enamel breakdown due to caries, dentine caries
Device specifics: SS‐OCT (OCT‐2000, Santec, Komaki, Japan); "The lateral resolution of 17 mm is determined by the objective lens of the probe. A 2000 1024 pixel image is obtained in the real‐time and processed in a few hundred milliseconds"
Target condition and reference standard(s) Category: histology
Sequence of index test and reference standard: index test then reference standard
Training of examiner: "Two examiners with sufficient experience in histopathological study of caries"
Blinding to index test: unclear
Multiple tests: no
Site selection: sectioned teeth, through locations used for index test
Target condition: sound, superficial enamel demineralisation, enamel breakdown, dentine caries
Flow and timing Participants with index test but no reference standard: 0
Participants with reference standard but no index test: 0
Time interval between tests: minimal
Participants receiving both tests but excluded from results: 0
Comparative  
Notes  
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes    
Was a case‐control design avoided? Yes    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? No    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   High risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)? No    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Yes    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Unclear    
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Yes    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   Low risk