Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

516 questions · 950 findings · 74 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 35 · 3.7%GRADE not reported 831 · 87.5%Very low 38 · 4%Low 26 · 2.7%Moderate 13 · 1.4%High 7 · 0.7%

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Dental service utilisation within the past year · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Past-year dental service use varies widely (4%-72%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban setting

Determinants of oral diseases · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Older age, lower education and income, poor oral hygiene, and disadvantaged residential setting were associated with oral diseases; directions varied across studies.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum residence vs Non-slum urban setting

Dental caries · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Slum residents had non-significantly higher odds of caries than non-slum residents (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94-1.56; single study); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum residence vs Non-slum urban setting

Periodontal pocket (odds), slum vs non-slum residence · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Slum residents had significantly higher odds of periodontal pocketing than non-slum residents (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.13-1.98; single study); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Caries experience (mean DMFT) · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Mean DMFT ranges from 0.26 to 16.6 across LMIC urban/slum populations; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Dental trauma prevalence · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Dental trauma appears more common in urban and disadvantaged settings; ungraded, few studies.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Use of toothbrush and toothpaste for mouth cleaning · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Toothbrush/paste is the commonest cleaning method but is used less in slum/disadvantaged/rural groups than urban/non-slum groups; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Pattern of dental service utilisation and barriers · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Dental service use is low, episodic and pain-driven, with widespread self-care and cost/funding barriers; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Frequency of mouth cleaning · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Twice-daily cleaning (recommended) is uncommon; most clean once, in the morning; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Oral disease burden, slum vs non-slum urban comparison · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Where compared, oral disease burden is generally higher in slums than non-slum urban/national populations (5 studies; 1 found no difference); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Dental caries prevalence · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Dental caries prevalence in LMIC urban/slum populations ranges widely (13%-76%); not GRADE-rated (narrative synthesis).

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban setting

Oral disease prevalence · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Oral disease prevalence was generally high and worse in slum settings where compared, but no meta-analysis was conducted.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Self-perceived (self-rated) oral health status · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Most participants perceive their oral health as satisfactory (one study 39%), more so among younger, male, higher-SES and employed people; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban setting

Self-perceived (self-rated) oral health status · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Most participants reported positive perceptions of oral health, despite observed disease burden.

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Use of alternative/indigenous mouth-cleaning implements · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Indigenous/alternative cleaning tools and home remedies are widely used, more so in rural/slum groups; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Indirect restorations (crowns, fixed partial dentures, inlays/onlays/veneers) vs None (single-group incidence)

Pulp necrosis · Vital teeth restored with indirect restorations

Pulp necrosis incidence among treated by prosthodontists was 1.87% (subgroup analysis; not GRADE-rated).

23 findings from 1 review
Show 20 more findings

Tooth location

Pulp necrosis · Vital teeth

One study reported a 7.1% incidence in mandibular posterior teeth.

8 findings from 1 review
Show 5 more findings

Indirect restoration placement by undergraduate students vs None (single-group incidence)

Pulp necrosis · Vital teeth

The pooled incidence with undergraduate students was 5.68%.

2 findings from 1 review