Probiotics vs placebo or control: Dental caries in children
- Population
- Adolescents (12-18 years) without background systemic disease
- Intervention
- Probiotics
- Comparison
- placebo or control
- Outcome
- Dental caries in children
In a subgroup analysis, probiotics reduced the number of caries in adolescents (MD -0.60, 95%CI -0.92 to -0.28; p-interaction=0.02); not GRADE-rated.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Probiotics (any strain, dose, or presentation), minimum intake duration 0.2 months vs No treatment or placebo (control) Number of dental caries (carious pieces) · Adolescents (12-18 years) without background systemic disease · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings, Population: adolescents (vs children; p-interaction=0.02) In a subgroup analysis, probiotics reduced the number of caries in adolescents (MD -0.60, 95%CI -0.92 to -0.28; p-interaction=0.02); not GRADE-rated. Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. (2024) All outcomes | MD -0.60 [-0.92, -0.28] | Not reported | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes | March 15, 2023 | 19 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Probiotics vs placebo or control · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.