Tooth wear assessment (primary teeth) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year): Tooth wear prevalence
One study reported a very high prevalence of tooth wear (97.6%) in the primary dentition of school children in Abu Dhabi, associated with older age, mouth breathing and anterior deep bite (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Tooth wear assessment (primary teeth) vs None (descriptive prevalence review) Tooth wear prevalence · School children (primary dentition) in the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi) · Abu Dhabi, UAE; schools One study reported a very high prevalence of tooth wear (97.6%) in the primary dentition of school children in Abu Dhabi, associated with older age, mouth breathing and anterior deep bite (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 | Al Halabi et al. (Abu Dhabi; 506 children, 9,213 teeth) reported tooth wear in 97.6% of school children, with the highest prevalence and severity at the upper incisor and upper canine segments. Attrition was… | 1 study · 506 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 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.
- Prevalence of Tooth Wear in Primary Dentition in School Children of Abu Dhabi, UAE · 2016 · 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.