Can teledentistry be used as an alternative to in-person examinations for the detection of dental caries in pandemic?

A COMMENTARY ON: Casas K, DiPede L, Toema S, Ogwo C. Assessing Teledentistry versus In-Person Examinations to Detect Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JDR Clinical & Translational Research. 2025;11(1):4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844251320974 DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry compared to in-person examinations for detecting dental caries in primary and permanent dentition. The authors conducted a search in PubMed and CINAHL via EBSCOhost and followed the PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy) guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative studies, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, that used DMFT/S or ICDAS indices and reported sensitivity and specificity as diagnostic parameters were considered eligible. Only studies published in English between January 2013 and December 2021 were included. Studies that did not meet these criteria were excluded. DATA ANALYSIS: QUADAS-2 and JBI checklists were used for risk of bias and critical appraisal. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects approach was applied to conduct the univariate meta-analysis. Forest plots were generated for included studies, and sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and Higgins's I² to evaluate the variation across studies and the consistency of the results. RESULTS: Twelve studies reported sensitivity of 45.6-88.3% and specificity of 55.2-98.3% for teledentistry in caries detection. Accuracy ranged from 70% to 96%, and PPV/NPV were 79-92% and 48-97%, respectively. Heterogeneity was low (I² = 24%), and the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model estimated a diagnostic odds ratio of 35.14, indicating high diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: Teledentistry can be considered a method comparable to in-person examinations for diagnosing dental caries.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Evidence-Based Dentistry
Published
2026-04-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-026-01222-2
Primary Topic
Dental Research and COVID-19
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can teledentistry be used as an alternative to in-person examinations for the detection of dental caries in pandemic?

Seyyedeh Mahsa Sheikholeslamian
Evidence-Based Dentistry
Dental Research and COVID-19
article

Can teledentistry be used as an alternative to in-person examinations for the detection of dental caries in pandemic?

Seyyedeh Mahsa Sheikholeslamian
article en

Abstract

A COMMENTARY ON: Casas K, DiPede L, Toema S, Ogwo C. Assessing Teledentistry versus In-Person Examinations to Detect Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JDR Clinical & Translational Research. 2025;11(1):4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844251320974 DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis focusing on the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry compared to in-person examinations for detecting dental caries in primary and permanent dentition. The authors conducted a search in PubMed and CINAHL via EBSCOhost and followed the PRISMA-DTA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Diagnostic Test Accuracy) guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Comparative studies, including randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, that used DMFT/S or ICDAS indices and reported sensitivity and specificity as diagnostic parameters were considered eligible. Only studies published in English between January 2013 and December 2021 were included. Studies that did not meet these criteria were excluded. DATA ANALYSIS: QUADAS-2 and JBI checklists were used for risk of bias and critical appraisal. A DerSimonian-Laird random-effects approach was applied to conduct the univariate meta-analysis. Forest plots were generated for included studies, and sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and Higgins's I² to evaluate the variation across studies and the consistency of the results. RESULTS: Twelve studies reported sensitivity of 45.6-88.3% and specificity of 55.2-98.3% for teledentistry in caries detection. Accuracy ranged from 70% to 96%, and PPV/NPV were 79-92% and 48-97%, respectively. Heterogeneity was low (I² = 24%), and the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model estimated a diagnostic odds ratio of 35.14, indicating high diagnostic performance. CONCLUSIONS: Teledentistry can be considered a method comparable to in-person examinations for diagnosing dental caries.

Evidence-Based Dentistry
Case Western Reserve University (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Dental Research and COVID-19
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Can teledentistry be used as an alternative to in-person examinations for the detection of dental caries in pandemic? — Seyyedeh Mahsa Sheikholeslamian · Evidence-Based Dentistry (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS