Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls): Dental caries
- Population
- Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)
- Intervention
- Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping)
- Comparison
- Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)
- Outcome
- Dental caries
Pooling 3 studies, children/adolescents with CLP were about 2.03 times more likely to have dental caries than non-CLP controls (p<0.005; low heterogeneity), though most included studies were at high risk of bias; the evidence is ungraded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls) Dental caries (proportion of patients with caries) · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) · Multiple countries; pediatric cleft/craniofacial care; saliva, dental plaque, subgingival plaque and nasal/oropharyngeal samples Pooling 3 studies, children/adolescents with CLP were about 2.03 times more likely to have dental caries than non-CLP controls (p<0.005; low heterogeneity), though most included studies were at high risk of bias; the evidence is ungraded. Characterization of the oral microbiota and the relationship of the oral microbiota with the dental and… (2024) All outcomes | OR 2.03 [1.46, 2.84] | 3 studies · 688 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characterization of the oral microbiota and the relationship of the oral microbiota with the dental and periodontal status in children and… 2024 All outcomes | Publications from 1 January 1985 to 30 June 2020 (search date not separately reported) | 24 | 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.