Background. Detecting early carious lesions on tooth surfaces which are hard to reach, especially proximal ones, is the most problematic part of a dental examination. Nowadays, in clinical practice, in additional to a clinical examination, the use of subsidiary methods, such as radiovisiography or laser, in detecting proximal caries is recommended. Objectives. A comparison of the effectiveness of detecting caries on the proximal surfaces of primary molars, permanent molars and premolars in children and youth under 18 years old using visual and tactical examination, the laser diagnostic camera DIAGNOcam ® (KaVo) and bitewing radiovisiography. Material and Methods. The proximal surfaces of molars and premolars in 100 children and youth under 18 years old were examined, all of whom were patients of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry at the Medical University of Warsaw. Examination of the proximal surfaces was conducted using Digora bitewing radiovisiography, a DIAGNOcam KaVo laser camera and visual and tactical examination according to the ICDAS-II classification scale. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Moreover, the sensitivity and specificity of the methods was evaluated. Results. The average patient age was 10.5 ± 3.83 years. Caries were diagnosed on 122 (10.90%) proximal surfaces of the lateral teeth in the radiovisiographic examination, on 113 (10.47%) using the DIAGNOcam KaVo intraoral camera and on 98 (4.00%) in the visual and tactical examination. A lack of statistical significance for the examination of the proximal tooth surfaces using DIAGNOcam vs radiovisiography was stated. The sensitivity of the radiovisiography was 88.33 and the specificity 84.38, whereas the sensitivity of the DIAGNOcam was 80.00 and the specificity was 81.10. Conclusions. The diagnostic methods that were used have varied in sensitivity and specificity. Examination of the proximal surfaces using the DIAGNOcam is less sensitive than radiovisiography, as well as less specific. Both methods have limitations in usage (Dent. Med. Probl. 2016, 53, 4, 468-475).