Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

355 questions · 760 findings · 41 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 25 · 3.3%GRADE not reported 674 · 88.7%Very low 29 · 3.8%Low 16 · 2.1%Moderate 16 · 2.1%High 0 · 0%

TT genotype of AMELX rs2106416 vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs2106416

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.44-6.34) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) of ENAM rs1264848 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.78-3.68) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

TT genotype of AMELX rs946252 vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.19-2.87) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

T allele of AMELX rs6639060 vs C allele of AMELX rs6639060

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63-1.85) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

Gastroesophageal or laryngopharyngeal reflux (GERD/LPR) vs Healthy controls

Salivary function impairment (buffering capacity, flow rate, oral pH) · Adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR)

Reflux is associated with impaired salivary function (notably reduced buffering capacity) as a proposed pathophysiological mechanism, based on several ungraded studies.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Laryngopharyngeal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux and dental disorders: A systematic review. 2020 All outcomes
    Adult patients in gastroenterology, ENT and dental clinical settings
    Mixed/controversial salivary findings: reduced salivary buffering capacity supported in three studies (Correa, Holbrook, Filipi) with low oral pH and reduced flow as additional factors in GERD patients, but Meurman and Schroeder found no significant salivary abnormalities; no pooled estimate.
    6 studies
    GRADE not reported

TT genotype of AMELX rs2106416 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.47-7.06); certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

TT genotype of ENAM rs3796703 vs CC + CT genotype of ENAM rs3796703

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 2.90, 95% CI 0.92-9.12); certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

Gastroesophageal or laryngopharyngeal reflux (GERD/LPR) vs Healthy controls

Oral/pharyngeal microbiota modifications · Adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR)

No eligible studies investigated reflux-related modifications of the oral or pharyngeal microbiota; this is an evidence gap identified by the review.

1 finding from 1 review

T allele of AMELX rs2106416 vs C allele of AMELX rs2106416

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.16-2.11); certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

GERD vs Healthy individuals without reflux (controls)

Dental caries · Adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR)

Reflux appears associated with a higher prevalence of dental caries than in healthy individuals based on three studies, though to a lesser extent than erosion; evidence is ungraded and not pooled.

1 finding from 1 review

CT genotype of ENAM rs3796703 vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.23-3.48) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

TT genotype of ENAM rs3796703 vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 5.22, 95% CI 0.25-108.96) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review