Cerebral palsy (oral health status) vs Healthy controls: Oral health status (caries, gingivitis, calculus, treatment indices)
One study found children with cerebral palsy had caries and gingivitis similar to matched controls but more calculus and anomalies, with lower restorative care despite greater need (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Cerebral palsy (oral health status) vs Age- and gender-matched healthy children Oral health status (caries, gingivitis, calculus, treatment indices) · Children with cerebral palsy in the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) · Dubai, UAE One study found children with cerebral palsy had caries and gingivitis similar to matched controls but more calculus and anomalies, with lower restorative care despite greater need (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated). Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. (2021) All outcomes | Al Hashmi et al. (Dubai) reported caries in 53% of children with cerebral palsy (mean DMFT 2.83) and gingivitis in 58.8%, similar to matched controls, but a significantly higher calculus index (0.56 vs 0.07) and more… | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes | May 4, 2021 | 42 | 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.
- Oral Health Status among Children with Cerebral Palsy in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. · 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.