Severe early childhood caries vs Caries-free controls: Relative abundance of Veillonella spp.
Veillonella spp. mean relative abundance was lower in the S-ECC group; no comparative effect estimate or CI was reported.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Severe early childhood caries vs Caries-free controls Veillonella spp. relative abundance · Children under 6 years with severe early childhood caries and caries-free controls · USA Veillonella spp. mean relative abundance was lower in the S-ECC group; no comparative effect estimate or CI was reported. A systematic review of Streptococcus Mutans and Veillonellae species interactions in dental caries… (2025) All outcomes | Mean relative abundance (%) caries 5.25 (SD 6.65) vs control 15.22 (SD 9.48); P=0.033 | 1 study · 9 (caries only; control not reported in Table 3) participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 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) | 7 | 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.
- Beyond Streptococcus mutans: dental caries onset linked to multiple species by 16S rRNA community analysis. · 2012 · included by 1 of these review
- Agnello 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Chalmers 2015 · included by 1 of these review
- Jiang 2016 · included by 1 of these review
- Milnes 1985 · included by 1 of these review
- Setiawan 2020 · included by 1 of these review
- Tanner 2011 · 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.