Question · asked by 1 review
Vegetarian diet (any diet excluding all meat, poultry and fish) vs Nonvegetarian diet: Dental erosion
Among adults and excluding the outlier study, vegetarian diet was associated with higher odds of dental erosion with no heterogeneity (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.77 to 3.71; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Vegetarian diet (any diet excluding all meat, poultry and fish) vs Nonvegetarian diet Presence of dental erosion · General population (children and adults) assessed for dental hard-tissue health · Multiple countries (mostly India; also Finland and other European countries, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago); community and clinical settings, Adults only, excluding Linkosalo & Markkanen 1985 Among adults and excluding the outlier study, vegetarian diet was associated with higher odds of dental erosion with no heterogeneity (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.77 to 3.71; ungraded). Vegetarian diet and its possible influence on dental health: A systematic literature review. (2020) All outcomes | OR 2.56 [1.77, 3.71] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Vegetarian diet (any diet excluding all meat, poultry and fish) vs Nonvegetarian diet Presence of dental erosion · General population (children and adults) assessed for dental hard-tissue health · Multiple countries (mostly India; also Finland and other European countries, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago); community and clinical settings, Sensitivity analysis excluding Linkosalo & Markkanen 1985 (outlier) After excluding an outlier study, the association between vegetarian diet and dental erosion remained significant (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.27; ungraded). Vegetarian diet and its possible influence on dental health: A systematic literature review. (2020) All outcomes | OR 1.97 [1.19, 3.27] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Vegetarian diet (any diet excluding all meat, poultry and fish) vs Nonvegetarian diet Presence of dental erosion · General population (children and adults) assessed for dental hard-tissue health · Multiple countries (mostly India; also Finland and other European countries, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago); community and clinical settings A vegetarian diet was associated with about twofold higher odds of dental erosion than a nonvegetarian diet (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.24 to 4.66; ungraded, mostly low-quality studies). Vegetarian diet and its possible influence on dental health: A systematic literature review. (2020) All outcomes | OR 2.40 [1.24, 4.66] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Vegetarian diet (any diet excluding all meat, poultry and fish) vs Nonvegetarian diet Presence of dental erosion · General population (children and adults) assessed for dental hard-tissue health · Multiple countries (mostly India; also Finland and other European countries, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago); community and clinical settings, Adults only Among adults, vegetarian diet was associated with almost threefold higher odds of dental erosion (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.26; ungraded). Vegetarian diet and its possible influence on dental health: A systematic literature review. (2020) All outcomes | OR 2.94 [1.64, 5.26] | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetarian diet and its possible influence on dental health: A systematic literature review. 2020 All outcomes | 2019-04-17 | 19 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Al-Diagn, Shaw & Smith 2001 · included by 1 of these review
- Herman 2011 · included by 1 of these review
- Linkosalo 1988 · included by 1 of these review
- Linkosalo & Markkanen 1985 · included by 1 of these 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.