Isolated cleft palate (CP) or other specific cleft type vs Cleft lip and palate (CLP) or other cleft type: Caries experience by cleft type
- Population
- Children in the primary dentition with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P)
- Intervention
- Isolated cleft palate (CP) or other specific cleft type
- Comparison
- Cleft lip and palate (CLP) or other cleft type
- Outcome
- Caries experience by cleft type
Whether cleft type is associated with caries experience could not be determined; the planned CP-versus-CL/P subgroup analysis was not possible owing to sparse isolated-CP data (5 studies described narratively; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Isolated cleft palate (CP) or other specific cleft type vs Cleft lip and palate (CLP) or other cleft type Caries experience by cleft type · Children in the primary dentition with cleft lip and/or palate (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 Whether cleft type is associated with caries experience could not be determined; the planned CP-versus-CL/P subgroup analysis was not possible owing to sparse isolated-CP data (5 studies described narratively; ungraded). Caries in children with and without orofacial clefting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2022) All outcomes | Five studies investigated caries experience by cleft type (Howe 2017; Kirchberg 2014; Mutarai 2008; Sunderji 2017; Zhu 2010). A subgroup analysis comparing CP and CL/P as different entities was not possible due to the… | 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.