Question · asked by 1 review

High-frequency sugar consumption (three or more times daily) vs Low sugar intake (fewer than three times daily): Early childhood caries experience (mean dmft)

Population
Nigerian children with primary dentition (approximately 6 months to 5 years)
Intervention
High-frequency sugar consumption (three or more times daily)
Comparison
Low sugar intake (fewer than three times daily)
Outcome
Early childhood caries experience (mean dmft)

In primary dentition, high-frequency sugar consumption was associated with slightly higher, non-significant odds of caries (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.44), with high heterogeneity (I2=83%; ungraded).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
High-frequency sugar consumption (three or more times daily) vs Low sugar intake (fewer than three times daily)
Dental caries experience in primary dentition (early childhood caries) · Nigerian children with primary dentition (approximately 6 months to 5 years) · Community and school-based observational studies in Nigeria (12 of 14 in Southwest Nigeria), Primary dentition
In primary dentition, high-frequency sugar consumption was associated with slightly higher, non-significant odds of caries (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.44), with high heterogeneity (I2=83%; ungraded).
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between sugar intake and dental caries in Nigeria. (2024) All outcomes
OR 1.13 [0.23, 5.44]2 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between sugar intake and dental caries in Nigeria.
2024 All outcomes
January 2001 to November 2024 (per Methods; Abstract states January 2001 to March 2023)15Not 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.

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.