Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) vs Children and adolescents without JIA (healthy peers): Periodontal conditions (gingival inflammation, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment loss)
Periodontal conditions (gingival inflammation, bleeding, probing depth, attachment loss) were more frequently reported in children/adolescents with JIA than in healthy peers, although not all studies agreed; no pooled estimate (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) vs Children and adolescents without JIA (healthy peers) Periodontal conditions (gingival inflammation, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment loss) · Children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) · Multiple countries (Europe and Brazil); paediatric dental/rheumatology settings Periodontal conditions (gingival inflammation, bleeding, probing depth, attachment loss) were more frequently reported in children/adolescents with JIA than in healthy peers, although not all studies agreed; no pooled estimate (ungraded). Oral health in children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis - a systematic review and… (2019) All outcomes | Many studies documented poorer periodontal status among children/adolescents with JIA: more gingival inflammation and bleeding [22, 29, 31], bleeding on probing [25], deeper probing depth [25, 26] and periodontal… | Not reported | 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 |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.