Assessing Teledentistry versus In-Person Examinations to Detect Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Abstract

Introduction: There is no recent consensus on the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination in the diagnosis of dental caries, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis (PROSPERO #CRD42023410962).

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of teledentistry versus in-person examination for dental caries diagnosis. The eligibility criteria were peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 2013 and December 2021 that reported diagnostic parameters (specificity and sensitivity) for caries detection in primary and permanent dentition. Articles were extracted using search strategies from PubMed and CINAHL databases and screened using PRISMA-DTA guidelines, following a review for quality assessment and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. Meta-analysis was conducted in R using the MADA package. A descriptive analysis of the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and confidence intervals was performed with respective forest plots. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochrane Q and Higgins's I² tests. Univariate measures of diagnostic accuracy were performed based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect and reported summary diagnostic odds ratios.

Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed and included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic parameters ranged from 45.6% to 88.3% for sensitivity, 55.2% to 98.3% for specificity, 79% to 92% for positive predictive value, 48% to 97% for negative predictive value, and 70% to 96% for accuracy. The κ scores ranged from 0.46 to 0.89 for teledentistry modalities. Tests for equality of sensitivities and specificities were significant (P < 0.001). The studies were not heterogeneous with Cochran's Q: 14.502 (P = 0.206) and Higgins's I² of 24%. The multivariable analysis showed a diagnostic odds ratio based on the DerSimonian-Laird random effect of 35.14, which indicates that the odds of caries detection via teledentistry is 35 times more true positive (i.e., correctly identifying a positive condition) than false positive.

Conclusions: Diagnosis of caries via teledentistry is effective and comparable to in-person diagnosis. Remote assessments are consistent in diagnostic accuracy for caries.Knowledge Transfer Statement:This systematic review and meta-analysis added to the evidence about using teledentistry assessment as a diagnostically accurate tool to detect dental caries. Using teledentistry dental practices could promote greater access to dental and oral health care in the absence of in-person assessment.