Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) vs Children and adolescents without JIA (healthy peers): Dental caries in permanent teeth
- Population
- Children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)
- Intervention
- Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)
- Comparison
- Children and adolescents without JIA (healthy peers)
- Outcome
- Dental caries in permanent teeth
There was no significant difference in dental caries of the permanent teeth (DMFT) between children/adolescents with JIA and healthy peers (pooled MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.26; 6 cross-sectional studies; no heterogeneity I2=0%; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) vs Children and adolescents without JIA (healthy peers) Dental caries in permanent teeth (DMFT index) · Children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) · United Kingdom, Brazil and Poland (Ahmed 2004, Feres de Melo 2014, Santos 2015, Welbury 2003, Kobus 2017); paediatric dental/rheumatology settings There was no significant difference in dental caries of the permanent teeth (DMFT) between children/adolescents with JIA and healthy peers (pooled MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.26; 6 cross-sectional studies; no heterogeneity I2=0%; ungraded). Oral health in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis - a systematic review and… (2019) All outcomes | MD -0.08 [-0.42, 0.26] | 6 studies · 320 participants | 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 in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis - a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2019 All outcomes | 25 November 2018 | 20 | Not applicable |
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.