Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 327

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Systematic Reviews of Selected Dental Caries Diagnostic and Management Methods

Bader, James D., Shugars, Daniel A., Bonito, Arthur J.·2001·Journal of Dental Education

Abstract

A systematic review of the English‐language literature was conducted to address three related questions concerning the diagnosis and management of dental caries: a) the performance (sensitivity, specificity) of currently available diagnostic methods for carious lesions, b) the efficacy of approaches to the management of noncavitated or initial carious lesions, and c) the efficacy of preventive methods among individuals who have experienced or are expected to experience elevated incidence of carious lesions. From 1,328 caries diagnostic and 1,435 caries management reports originally identified, thirty‐nine diagnostic studies and twenty‐seven management studies were included in the final evidence tables. Point estimates or reasonable range estimates for the diagnostic validity of methods for the diagnosis of carious lesions could not be established from the literature reviewed. There are insufficient numbers of reports of diagnostic performance involving primary teeth, anterior teeth, and root surfaces. For posterior occlusal and proximal surfaces, quality issues and the variation among studies precludes establishing such estimates. The apparent differences in sensitivity among methods are generally smaller than the variation reported within methods. The literature on the management of noncavitated carious lesions consisted of five studies describing seven experimental interventions. Because these interventions varied extensively in terms of management methods tested as well as other study characteristics, no conclusions about the efficacy of these methods were possible. The literature on the management of individuals at elevated risk of carious lesions consisted of twenty‐two studies describing twenty‐nine experimental interventions. The strength of the evidence for the efficacy of fluoride varnish for prevention of dental caries in high‐risk subjects was fair, and the evidence for all other methods was incomplete. Because the evidence for efficacy for some methods, including chlorhexidine, sucrose‐free gum, and combined chlorhexidine‐fluoride methods, is suggestive but not conclusive, these interventions represent fruitful areas for further research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/j.0022-0337.2001.65.10.tb03470.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 327

Metadata

Authors
Bader, J. D., Shugars, D. A., & Bonito, A. J.
Venue
Journal of Dental Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-10
Volume
65
Issue
10
Pages
960-968
ISSN
  • 0022-0337 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7837
OpenAlex
W1958409549
Cited by
327
References
0
FWCI
8.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic Reviews of Selected Dental Caries Diagnostic and Management Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2001.65.10.tb03470.x
The paper
Bader, J. D., Shugars, D. A., & Bonito, A. J. (2001). Systematic Reviews of Selected Dental Caries Diagnostic and Management Methods. Journal of Dental Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.0022-0337.2001.65.10.tb03470.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.