Question · asked by 1 review

Periodontal disease (periodontitis; clinical attachment loss >=4 mm) vs Adults without periodontal disease (healthy periodontal status; CAL <=3 mm): Root caries (presence of root caries)

Population
Adults (mean age ~53 years)
Intervention
Periodontal disease (periodontitis; clinical attachment loss >=4 mm)
Comparison
Adults without periodontal disease (healthy periodontal status; CAL <=3 mm)
Outcome
Root caries (presence of root caries)

Adults with periodontal disease had significantly higher odds of root caries than those without (pooled OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.53; 2 observational studies; low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Periodontal disease (periodontitis; clinical attachment loss >=4 mm) vs Adults without periodontal disease (healthy periodontal status; CAL <=3 mm)
Root caries (presence of root caries) · Adults (mean age ~53 years) · Population-based dental surveys: England (Adult Dental Health Survey 2009) and China (4th National Oral Health Survey) for the two pooled studies; included studies from China, England, Japan, and Finland
Adults with periodontal disease had significantly higher odds of root caries than those without (pooled OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.53; 2 observational studies; low certainty).
Is there an association between periodontal disease and root caries? A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2023) All outcomes
OR 1.38 [1.25, 1.53]2 studies · 7664 participantsLow

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Is there an association between periodontal disease and root caries? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
2023 All outcomes
April 2023 (searches updated until April 2023)4Not 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.