Question · asked by 1 review
Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P): Restorative index (RI = f/[d+f]) in the primary dentition
- Population
- Children in the primary dentition with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and comparable children without CL/P
- Intervention
- Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P)
- Comparison
- No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P)
- Outcome
- Restorative index (RI = f/[d+f]) in the primary dentition
The restorative index tended to be lower in children with CL/P (3 of 5 studies), indicating a lower proportion of restoratively managed carious teeth; not pooled (narrative; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P) Restorative index (RI = f/[d+f]) in the primary dentition · Children in the primary dentition with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and comparable children without CL/P · Children with CL/P and comparable non-CL/P children across 12 countries (India, Brazil, China, Sweden, UK, USA, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, Jordan, Thailand); studies published 1989-2021 The restorative index tended to be lower in children with CL/P (3 of 5 studies), indicating a lower proportion of restoratively managed carious teeth; not pooled (narrative; ungraded). Caries in children with and without orofacial clefting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes | Of the five studies for which the RI could be calculated, three of them (Dahllof 1989; Nagappan 2019; Veiga 2016) showed a lower RI for children with CL/P compared to children with no CL/P demonstrating a lower… | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Caries in children with and without orofacial clefting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022 All outcomes | November 2021 (PubMed to Nov 2021; Scopus to Nov 2021; Cochrane CENTRAL to 2021; Web of Science only to June 2017) | 32 | Not applicable |
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.