Jablonski‐Momeni 2016.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: unclear Included conditions: non‐cavitated and early lesions (ICDAS 0‐2) Teeth: primary (this entry is for primary) and permanent Sealants: not reported Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: 5 to 12 years, mean age 9.1 Sex: 17 male, 18 female Ethnicity: not reported Country: Germany Setting: "recruited in a dental office" Number of participants/teeth/sites: 35 participants/205 primary, 214 permanent teeth Prevalence: primary: enamel 0.18, dentine 0 permanent: enamel 0.35, dentine 0
Index tests	Category of test: VistaProof Sequence of test(s): visual prior to VistaProof, so reference standard then index test Examiner training and calibration: not reported Teeth cleaning prior to examination: yes, rotating brush and paste, then rinsed with a 3 in 1 syringe Tooth drying prior to examination: unclear Threshold applied: 0–1.2 sound; 1.3–1.5 enamel caries; > 1.5 dentine caries Device specifics: "Each image was analyzed by the specific software (DBSWIN, Durr Dental)"
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: visual (ICDAS) for all surfaces Sequence of index test and reference standard: the index test was performed after visual examination Training of examiner: unclear Blinding to index test: not reported Multiple tests: no Site selection: all selected occlusal surfaces Target condition: ICDAS categories: 0 = sound; 1 = first visible sign of non‐cavitated lesion seen only when the tooth is dry; 2 = visible non‐cavitated lesion seen when wet and dry; 3 = microcavitation in enamel; code 4 = non‐cavitated lesion extending into dentine seen as an undermining shadow; code 5 = small cavitated lesion with visible dentine: less than 50% of surface; and code 6 = large cavitated lesion with visible dentine
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: 13, "Thirteen teeth were unable to be monitored for 1 year (due to restorative treatment or extraction)"
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?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Unclear 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?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear 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)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard?	Unclear
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Red fluorescence)
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	No
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?		High risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			High
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?	No
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Low risk