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.
Elsayed et al. (Wed,) studied this question.