Low socioeconomic status and family financial stress vs Higher socioeconomic status and lower stress: Salivary cortisol, cariogenic bacterial load and dental caries
- Population
- Kindergarten-age children
- Intervention
- Low socioeconomic status and family financial stress
- Comparison
- Higher socioeconomic status and lower stress
- Outcome
- Salivary cortisol, cariogenic bacterial load and dental caries
In one cross-sectional study of children, low socioeconomic status, higher basal salivary cortisol and higher cariogenic bacterial counts were each independently associated with higher dental caries risk; not pooled (ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Low socioeconomic status and family financial stress vs Higher socioeconomic status and lower stress Salivary cortisol, cariogenic bacterial load and dental caries · Kindergarten-age children · Kindergarten children, California, USA (Peers and Wellness Study) In one cross-sectional study of children, low socioeconomic status, higher basal salivary cortisol and higher cariogenic bacterial counts were each independently associated with higher dental caries risk; not pooled (ungraded). Social-Biological Interactions in Oral Disease: A 'Cells to Society' View. (2016) All outcomes | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 94 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social-Biological Interactions in Oral Disease: A 'Cells to Society' View. 2016 All outcomes | Not specified; literature search covered publications from 1994 to 2015 | 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.
- Boyce et al. 2010 · included by 1 of these review
- Mengel et al. 2002 · 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.