Epilepsy (as exposure/condition) vs Healthy participants without epilepsy (control group): Mean DMFT (decayed, missing, filled permanent teeth)
- Population
- people with epilepsy
- Intervention
- Epilepsy (as exposure/condition)
- Comparison
- Healthy participants without epilepsy (control group)
- Outcome
- Mean DMFT (decayed, missing, filled permanent teeth)
People with epilepsy have a significantly higher DMFT (permanent-teeth caries) index than controls (SMD 0.403, 95% CI 0.057 to 0.749; high certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Epilepsy (as exposure/condition) vs Healthy participants without epilepsy (control group) DMFT (decayed, missing, filled permanent teeth) · People with epilepsy (children, adolescents, and adults) · Clinical/community dental examination; multiple countries (England, Turkey, Egypt, Iran, China, India) People with epilepsy have a significantly higher DMFT (permanent-teeth caries) index than controls (SMD 0.403, 95% CI 0.057 to 0.749; high certainty). Evaluating the DMFT and dmft indices in people with epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes | SMD 0.403 [0.057, 0.749] | 7 studies | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluating the DMFT and dmft indices in people with epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2025 All outcomes | Up to October 30, 2024 | 12 | Not applicable |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Epilepsy (as exposure/condition) vs Healthy participants without epilepsy (control group) · Adults with epilepsy · 1 review
- Epilepsy (as exposure/condition) vs Healthy participants without epilepsy (control group) · Children and adolescents with epilepsy · 1 review
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.
- Cabuk 2023 · included by 1 of these review
- Gurbuz 2010 · included by 1 of these review
- Morgan 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- Najafi 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- Percival 2009 · included by 1 of these review
- Tiwari 2021 · included by 1 of these review
- Yeung 2019 · 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.