Caries experience vs Adolescents without dental caries: Negative oral-health impact on daily performance (OIDP or Child-OIDP)
For experience (history) of dental caries, adolescents had a significantly worse oral-health impact: PR 1.72 (95% CI 1.23 to 2.43) from 6 studies (I2=97%); ungraded, and not statistically different from the presence subgroup (p=0.19).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Experience of dental caries (caries history, e.g. DMFT) vs Adolescents without dental caries Negative oral-health impact on daily performance (OIDP or Child-OIDP) · Adolescents aged 10 to 19 years · Cross-sectional (concurrent exposure and outcome); oral impacts recalled over the prior 6 months, School-based (17/20 studies), plus household and secondary-data surveys; low-, middle- and high-income countries (Brazil, Thailand, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Zambia, Iran, Serbia, Nepal, India, South Africa, China), Caries-definition subgroup: experience of dental caries For experience (history) of dental caries, adolescents had a significantly worse oral-health impact: PR 1.72 (95% CI 1.23 to 2.43) from 6 studies (I2=97%); ungraded, and not statistically different from the presence subgroup (p=0.19). Impact of dental caries on the quality of life of adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2025) All outcomes | PR 1.72 [1.23, 2.43] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impact of dental caries on the quality of life of adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2025 All outcomes | January 2022; updated March 2024 (studies up until March 2024) | 22 | Not applicable |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.