Presoto 2017.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Method of sampling: selected Included conditions: "sound or decayed teeth" ‐ no indication of severity of decay Teeth: permanent molars and premolars ‐ third molars not assessed Sealants: not reported Surface: occlusal
Patient characteristics and setting	Age: young adult patients (male and female, 18 to 28 years old) Sex: not reported Ethnicity: not reported Country: Brazil Setting: clinical setting Number of participants/teeth/sites: 107 teeth/14 participants Prevalence: enamel.36
Index tests	Category of test: VistaProof Sequence of test(s): visual, radiograph, VistaProof, digital images ‐ each assessment separated by 1 week, different examiner interpreted images Examiner training and calibration: yes ‐ on extracted teeth Teeth cleaning prior to examination: professional prophylaxis with pumice and water Tooth drying prior to examination: drying with an air jet for 5 seconds Threshold applied: scored according to colour from heat map images, green = sound, purple = initial enamel, red = up to EDJ, orange = dentine, yellow = deep dentine Device specifics: "The results were automatically interpreted by DBSWIN software"
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Category: combined visual and radiograph Sequence of index test and reference standard: visual and radiographs performed prior to index tests but different examiners Training of examiner: yes Blinding to index test: yes Multiple tests: yes Site selection: visual assessment of all teeth Target condition: absence or presence of caries at enamel threshold
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 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?	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?	Yes
If multiple tests were applied were different examiners used for each (in vivo)?	Yes
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)
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)?	Yes
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 (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?			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