Down syndrome vs Individuals without Down syndrome (healthy controls: siblings, schoolchildren or others): Mean DMFT (decayed, missing, filled permanent teeth)
- Population
- Individuals of all ages
- Intervention
- Down syndrome
- Comparison
- Individuals without Down syndrome (healthy controls: siblings, schoolchildren or others)
- Outcome
- Mean DMFT (decayed, missing, filled permanent teeth)
Individuals with Down syndrome had a lower mean DMFT in permanent teeth than controls (pooled SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.02; 6 studies; I2=20%); certainty of evidence not graded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Down syndrome (trisomy 21) vs Individuals without Down syndrome (healthy controls: siblings, schoolchildren or others) Dental caries experience (mean DMFT; permanent teeth) · Individuals of any age (no age limit; ages 1 to 84 years across studies) · Individuals with and without Down syndrome from referral centres, national databases and schools across China, Portugal, Jordan, Nigeria, Brazil and India; cross-sectional studies Individuals with Down syndrome had a lower mean DMFT in permanent teeth than controls (pooled SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.02; 6 studies; I2=20%); certainty of evidence not graded. Association between Dental Caries and Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2015) All outcomes | SMD -0.18 [-0.35, -0.02] | 6 studies · 718 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Association between Dental Caries and Down Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2015 All outcomes | March 2013; updated September 2014 | 15 | 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.
- Assessment of salivary total antioxidant levels and oral health status in children with Down syndrome · 2013 · included by 1 of these review
- Oral health status and reasons for not attending dental care among 12‐ to 16‐year‐old children with Down syndrome in special needs centres… · 2012 · included by 1 of these review
- Areias et al., 2012 · included by 1 of these review
- Cheng et al., 2007 · included by 1 of these review
- Al Habashneh 2012 · included by 1 of these review
- Mathias et al., 2011 · included by 1 of these review
- Oredugba, 2007 · included by 1 of these review
- Subramaniam 2014 · 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.