GERD vs Healthy controls: Dental caries
- Population
- adults
- Intervention
- GERD
- Comparison
- Healthy controls
- Outcome
- Dental caries
The review reported higher caries scores in reflux patients than healthy individuals but did not formally demonstrate causation.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
GERD vs Healthy controls Dental caries · Adults The review reported higher caries scores in reflux patients than healthy individuals but did not formally demonstrate causation. Laryngopharyngeal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux and dental disorders: A systematic review. (2020) All outcomes | no estimate extracted | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Laryngopharyngeal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux and dental disorders: A systematic review. 2020 All outcomes | January 1990 to December 2019 (publication period searched) | 24 | Not applicable |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- GERD vs Healthy individuals without reflux (controls) · Adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) · 1 review
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.
- Oral soft tissue disorders are associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease: retrospective study. · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- The relationship between gastroesophageal reflux disease and chronic periodontitis. · 2014 · included by 1 of these review
- Oral symptoms including dental erosion in gastroesophageal reflux disease are associated with decreased salivary flow volume and… · 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.