Down syndrome (oral health status) vs Healthy controls: Oral health status (caries, DMFT, calculus, erosion, malocclusion, treatment indices)
One study found children with Down syndrome had similar caries prevalence but higher DMFT, calculus, erosion and malocclusion than controls, with better restorative-care access (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Down syndrome (oral health status) vs Healthy controls Oral health status (caries, DMFT, calculus, erosion, malocclusion, treatment indices) · Children with Down syndrome in the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) · Dubai, UAE One study found children with Down syndrome had similar caries prevalence but higher DMFT, calculus, erosion and malocclusion than controls, with better restorative-care access (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 | Ghaith et al. (Dubai) reported dental decay in 57.6% of children with Down syndrome (same as controls) but a higher mean DMFT (2.73 vs 1.65) and calculus index (0.25 vs 0.07), higher erosion prevalence/severity, and… | 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 Down Syndrome in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. · 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.