Ozsevik 2015.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: selected Included conditions: non‐cavitated and enamel lesions Teeth: permanent molars ‐ "the teeth had no cavitations, approximal restorations, or hypoplastic pits, as judged by the naked eye" Sealants: unclear Surface: approximal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: not reported Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Turkey Setting: extracted teeth, "the teeth were placed in arch models and fixed with melted utility wax. The best contact points possible were achieved" Number of participants/teeth/sites: 87 teeth/156 sites Prevalence: enamel 0.63, dentine 0.35
Index tests	Category of test: DIAGNOdent pen and Midwest, "The teeth were placed in arch models and fixed with melted utility wax. The best contact points possible were achieved" Sequence of test(s): index tests (DIAGNOdent pen and Midwest) followed by reference standard Examiner training and calibration: 1 trained examiner Teeth cleaning prior to examination: toothbrush and water (15 seconds), then 1 prophyflex Tooth drying prior to examination: air dried 3 seconds Threshold applied: sound 0–9; enamel 9.1–15; dentine > 15 Device specifics: DIAGNOdent pen: tip 1; Midwest: "red LED radiation was transported to the occlusal or approximal area using the tip of the probe in contact with the occlusal surfaces"
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: histology Sequence of index test and reference standard: index test then reference standard Training of examiner: calibrated Blinding to index test: yes Multiple tests: no Site selection: sectioned teeth Target condition: sound, enamel, 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: 1 week to allow for separation of teeth Participants receiving both tests but excluded from results: 0
Comparative
Notes	No evidence that the results of either index test would influence the other
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?			High
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?	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 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?	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?	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