CC+CT genotypes vs TT genotype: Dental caries
- Population
- Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
- Intervention
- CC+CT genotypes
- Comparison
- TT genotype
- Outcome
- Dental caries
CC+CT genotype at FokI(rs10735810) was associated with ~1.87-fold higher caries risk than TT (dominant model, OR 1.87); ungraded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
CC+CT genotypes vs TT genotype Dental caries · Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries · Dominant model (CC+CT vs TT), Children under 18 years; case-control and cross-sectional studies (China, Czech Republic, Turkey, Brazil, India) CC+CT genotype at FokI(rs10735810) was associated with ~1.87-fold higher caries risk than TT (dominant model, OR 1.87); ungraded. Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with caries risk in children: a systematic review and… (2024) All outcomes | OR 1.87 [1.15, 3.04] | 3 studies · 1329 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with caries risk in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2024 All outcomes | 31 August 2022 | 10 | 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.
- Investigation of Interaction between Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms and Environmental Factors in Early Childhood Caries in Chinese… · 2019 · included by 1 of these review
- The relationship between vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism and deciduous tooth decay in Chinese children. · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Association between Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms and Permanent Tooth Caries Susceptibility to… · 2017 · 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.