Question · asked by 1 review

GG genotype vs GA+AA genotypes: Dental caries

Population
Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
Intervention
GG genotype
Comparison
GA+AA genotypes
Outcome
Dental caries

After removing Zhang 2006, the recessive model at BsmI(rs1544410) remained non-significant (OR 0.86); ungraded.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
GG genotype vs GA+AA genotypes
Dental caries · Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries · Recessive model (GG vs GA+AA), Zhang 2006 removed, Children under 18 years; case-control and cross-sectional studies (China, Czech Republic, Turkey, Brazil, India), Sensitivity analysis (Zhang 2006 excluded)
After removing Zhang 2006, the recessive model at BsmI(rs1544410) remained non-significant (OR 0.86); ungraded.
Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with caries risk in children: a systematic review and… (2024) All outcomes
OR 0.86 [0.48, 1.54]3 studies · 1329 participantsGRADE not reported
GG genotype vs GA+AA genotypes
Dental caries · Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries · Recessive model (GG vs GA+AA), Children under 18 years; case-control and cross-sectional studies (China, Czech Republic, Turkey, Brazil, India)
Recessive model (GG vs GA+AA) at BsmI(rs1544410) showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.58; high heterogeneity); ungraded.
Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with caries risk in children: a systematic review and… (2024) All outcomes
OR 0.58 [0.26, 1.30]4 studies · 1741 participantsGRADE not reported

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with caries risk in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
2024 All outcomes
31 August 202210Not 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.