Question · asked by 1 review

Gingivitis (assessed by gingival index or WHO criteria) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year): Gingival health at 6 months

Population
Children and adolescents in the United Arab Emirates (Sharjah)
Intervention
Gingivitis (assessed by gingival index or WHO criteria)
Comparison
None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)
Outcome
Gingival health at 6 months

Gingivitis and high plaque levels were common among UAE children and adolescents, more likely in females and older children (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Gingival health assessment (gingivitis / gingival index) vs None (descriptive prevalence review)
Gingivitis / gingival health · Children and adolescents in the United Arab Emirates (Sharjah) · Sharjah, UAE; pediatric dentistry teaching clinic and schools
Gingivitis and high plaque levels were common among UAE children and adolescents, more likely in females and older children (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
Gopinath et al. reported high gingival and plaque scores among 3-12-year-olds at a Sharjah teaching clinic; increasing dmft/DMFT corresponded to higher plaque and gingival scores, and females and children >6 years were…Not reportedGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade.
2021 All outcomes
May 4, 202142Not 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.