Question · asked by 1 review

Dental caries (ECC/severe ECC) as exposure/grouping vs Caries-free controls: Relative abundance of Veillonella spp.

Evidence on whether Veillonella spp. relative abundance is higher or lower in children with dental caries than caries-free controls is inconsistent across 7 small observational studies; no pooled estimate was produced and the evidence is ungraded.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Dental caries (ECC/severe ECC) as exposure/grouping vs Caries-free controls
Relative abundance of Veillonella spp. · Individuals assessed for dental caries, predominantly children with early childhood caries (ECC) or severe ECC (age… · Community and clinical pediatric dental settings (USA, Hong Kong, Indonesia); saliva or dental plaque microbial sampling
Evidence on whether Veillonella spp. relative abundance is higher or lower in children with dental caries than caries-free controls is inconsistent across 7 small observational studies; no pooled estimate was produced and the evidence is ungraded.
A systematic review of Streptococcus Mutans and Veillonellae species interactions in dental caries… (2025) All outcomes
No meta-analysis was performed (too few studies). Across 7 studies the direction was inconsistent: Veillonella spp. relative abundance was higher in caries than in caries-free subjects in some studies (Setiawan 2020:…3 studies · 146 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
A systematic review of Streptococcus Mutans and Veillonellae species interactions in dental caries progression: Positive or Negative impact?
2024 All outcomes
18 July 2023 (databases searched from inception)7Not 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.

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.