Angnes 2005.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: selected Included conditions: no cavitation and enamel lesions Teeth: permanent third molars Sealants: no Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: 19 to 35 years Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Brazil Setting: adult volunteers ‐ "38 adult volunteers (19–35 years old) from Joaçaba, SC, Brazil, who had at least one third molar indicated for extraction" Number of participants/teeth/sites: 38/57/110 Prevalence: 0.82 enamel, 0.14 dentine
Index tests	Category of test: DIAGNOdent Sequence of test(s): DIAGNOdent, visual, and radiography before reference standard Examiner training and calibration: yes, "Two examiners participated in this study; one of them trained the other on diagnostic procedures" Teeth cleaning prior to examination: rotating bristle brush Tooth drying prior to examination: 3‐second air spray Threshold applied: < 15 sounds and early enamel, 15‐19 late enamel and early dentine, > 19 deep dentine, analysis performed at > 19 level Device specifics: tip not reported
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: combined test of: visual, drill, radiograph Sequence of index test and reference standard: visual element completed before DIAGNOdent Training of examiner: not reported Blinding to index test: no Multiple tests: yes Site selection: not clearly reported Target condition: sound, inactive enamel, active enamel, dentinal
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	Used data from first examiner
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	No
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
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?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All)
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?	No
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?		High risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Green fluorescence)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Blue fluorescence)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Red fluorescence)
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?	No
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?		High 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?	Yes
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