Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background/Objectives: Image-based teledentistry can support remote caries screening, but diagnostic performance varies. This systematic review evaluated its accuracy against in-person dental examination. Methods: PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were searched again on 22 September 2026. Fifty-three reports were retained: 43 diagnostic-accuracy and ten agreement/AUC-only reports described separately. Separate logit-scale multilevel random-effects models included 32 outcomes from 20 reports per endpoint. Moderator models excluding age included 26 outcomes from 16 reports and assessed dentition, image-acquisition role, and device. Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 and a separate adapted framework for agreement reports. Results: Summary sensitivity was 85.50% (95% CI 79.57–89.92%) and specificity was 92.25% (84.77–96.22%), with substantial heterogeneity (both Q tests p < 0.0001). The moderator omnibus test was significant for sensitivity (p = 0.0015), but not specificity (p = 0.9632). Intraoral camera use was associated with higher sensitivity than smartphone use after Holm adjustment (p = 0.0011). Dentition and acquisition-role contrasts were not significant after adjustment. Conclusions: Image-based teledentistry may support screening and triage. Mixed diagnostic units, heterogeneous thresholds, overlapping outcomes, sparse moderator categories and source-data limitations require cautious interpretation and prevent universal device or user rankings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Keskeny et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: