Special health care needs vs None (descriptive; compared across disability types): Oral health status and treatment needs
One study found very high caries (85.2%) and high unmet treatment needs among children with special healthcare needs, varying by disability type (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Special healthcare needs / disability (oral health status and treatment needs) vs None (descriptive; compared across disability types) Oral health status and treatment needs · Arab children with special healthcare needs in the United Arab Emirates (Ras Al Khaimah) · Ras Al Khaimah, UAE One study found very high caries (85.2%) and high unmet treatment needs among children with special healthcare needs, varying by disability type (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 | Alkhabuli et al. (Ras Al Khaimah) reported a high caries prevalence (85.2%) and high mean dmft/DMFT (5.67) among children with special healthcare needs. About two-thirds had good oral hygiene (highest in autism 100%,… | 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 and Treatment Needs for Children with Special Needs: A Cross-Sectional Study · 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.