Diagnostic Accuracy of Intraoral Photographic Assessment for Dental Caries Detection Across Lesion Severities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: The current investigation aims to assess the clinical efficacy of intraoral photographic assessment in detecting dental caries of varying severity and to assess different variables, such as the type of dentition, examiner experience, and the type of imaging equipment, on evaluative clarity. Methods: This meta-analysis of the PRISMA-DTA systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy was conducted. They searched electronic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library from the beginning of time up to January 2025. The studies had to have evaluated intraoral photographic caries because they were required to have compared it with clinical intraoral examination and provide extractable tooth-level 2 × 2 data. Enamel (ICDAS 1 3), dentine (ICDAS 4 6), and any caries (ICDAS 1 6) were analyzed separately in a meta-analysis. A random-effects model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. Subgroup analysis was done on a pre-specified basis according to dentition, type of examiner, and imaging device. This study has been registered in PROSPERO with reference number 2026 CRD420261330820. Results: Twenty-three studies were retrieved through a comprehensive search and were stratified by severity into three categories. In the case of enamel caries, sensitivity was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.62–0.68), specificity was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94–0.95), DOR was 36.74 (95% CI: 12.44–108.49), and the AUC was 0.87. In the case of dentine caries, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85–0.87) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.96–0.97), respectively, which produced the DOR of 176 (95% CI: 91.2–339.6) and the AUC of 0.94. Any caries had a pooled sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80–0.83), specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96–0.97), DOR of 64.04 (95% CI: 11.65–351.94), and AUC of 0.888. Subgroup analyses revealed that diagnostic accuracy was greater when the lesions were severe. Conclusions: Intraoral photographic assessment has a moderate level of accuracy in detecting enamel lesions and has a clinically acceptable level of accuracy in detecting dentine caries. The clinical efficacy increased with the severity of lesions and was consistent with high specificity at all levels of threshold. Imaging on smartphones could be a promising method for caries screening.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Oral
Published
2026-06-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/oral6030075
Primary Topic
Dental Health and Care Utilization
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Intraoral Photographic Assessment for Dental Caries Detection Across Lesion Severities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ahmed A. Alghamdi, Shaimaa F K Habib, Rania E. Bayoumi, Ali Barakat et al.
Oral
Dental Health and Care Utilization
article

Diagnostic Accuracy of Intraoral Photographic Assessment for Dental Caries Detection Across Lesion Severities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Ahmed A. Alghamdi, Shaimaa F K Habib, Rania E. Bayoumi, Ali Barakat, Maha S. Othman, Salah A. Yousief, Hend Mohamed Elsayed, Maram AlQahtani, Yazeed Alarjani, Abdulrahman Salem Alghuraymil, Faisal Musaad Almobarak, Waleed Nasir Saeed Asiri, Alhanouf Alsamari, Fahd Alkhaldi, Faisal Khalid Almohaya, Galia Aljefri, Noor Aldossari
article en

Abstract

Objective: The current investigation aims to assess the clinical efficacy of intraoral photographic assessment in detecting dental caries of varying severity and to assess different variables, such as the type of dentition, examiner experience, and the type of imaging equipment, on evaluative clarity. Methods: This meta-analysis of the PRISMA-DTA systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy was conducted. They searched electronic databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library from the beginning of time up to January 2025. The studies had to have evaluated intraoral photographic caries because they were required to have compared it with clinical intraoral examination and provide extractable tooth-level 2 × 2 data. Enamel (ICDAS 1 3), dentine (ICDAS 4 6), and any caries (ICDAS 1 6) were analyzed separately in a meta-analysis. A random-effects model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. Subgroup analysis was done on a pre-specified basis according to dentition, type of examiner, and imaging device. This study has been registered in PROSPERO with reference number 2026 CRD420261330820. Results: Twenty-three studies were retrieved through a comprehensive search and were stratified by severity into three categories. In the case of enamel caries, sensitivity was 0.65 (95% CI: 0.62–0.68), specificity was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.94–0.95), DOR was 36.74 (95% CI: 12.44–108.49), and the AUC was 0.87. In the case of dentine caries, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.86 (95% CI: 0.85–0.87) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.96–0.97), respectively, which produced the DOR of 176 (95% CI: 91.2–339.6) and the AUC of 0.94. Any caries had a pooled sensitivity of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.80–0.83), specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96–0.97), DOR of 64.04 (95% CI: 11.65–351.94), and AUC of 0.888. Subgroup analyses revealed that diagnostic accuracy was greater when the lesions were severe. Conclusions: Intraoral photographic assessment has a moderate level of accuracy in detecting enamel lesions and has a clinically acceptable level of accuracy in detecting dentine caries. The clinical efficacy increased with the severity of lesions and was consistent with high specificity at all levels of threshold. Imaging on smartphones could be a promising method for caries screening.

OralVol. 6(3)
Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University (SA), Cairo University (EG), Al-Azhar University (EG), King Fahd Medical City (SA), Dar Al Uloom University (SA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Dental Health and Care Utilization
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.