Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

75 questions · 81 findings · 8 reviews · Periodontology

No studies found 28 · 34.6%GRADE not reported 40 · 49.4%Very low 6 · 7.4%Low 6 · 7.4%Moderate 1 · 1.2%High 0 · 0%

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Dental caries · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

Pooling 3 studies, children/adolescents with CLP were about 2.03 times more likely to have dental caries than non-CLP controls (p<0.005; low heterogeneity), though most included studies were at high risk of bias; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Lactobacillus spp. salivary/plaque counts (cariogenic microbiota) · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

A meta-analysis found no significant difference in mean Lactobacillus spp. levels between children with and without CLP, with high heterogeneity; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Streptococcus mutans count · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

A meta-analysis of 2 studies found no difference in mean Streptococcus mutans levels between children with and without CLP, with very high heterogeneity; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Periodontal conditions (gingival inflammation, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment loss) · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

Narrative synthesis of 6 studies suggests children/adolescents with CLP have poorer periodontal status (higher gingival and plaque indices, deeper probing, more bleeding and attachment loss) and harbor periodontopathogens; no pooled estimate and the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Plaque · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)

It is very uncertain whether flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated… changes plaque (Turesky-modified Quigley-Hein/other plaque indices; SMD) compared with toothbrushing alone (with or without a negative-control/placebo rinse) (very low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Side effects · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
1 finding from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Gingivitis · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated… led to lower gingivitis (Gingival Index, 0-3 scale; SMD) compared with toothbrushing alone (with or without a negative-control/placebo rinse); GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Economic and resource cost of flossing · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Interproximal caries · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Periodontitis (clinical attachment loss) · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Bad breath (halitosis) · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Calculus · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated floss) vs Toothbrushing alone

Quality of life · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Gingival index (GI) · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Persons with orofacial cleft have a higher gingival index than healthy controls (MD 0.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.19; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Clinical attachment level (CAL) · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Clinical attachment level loss is greater in persons with orofacial cleft than in healthy controls (p<0.00001), but no pooled effect size was reported (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Bleeding Index (BI) · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Bleeding index is significantly higher in persons with orofacial cleft than in healthy controls (p<0.0001), but no pooled effect size was reported (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Probing pocket depth · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Persons with orofacial cleft have a greater probing pocket depth than healthy controls (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Plaque · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Persons with orofacial cleft have a higher plaque index than healthy controls (MD 0.29, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.34; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P)

Lactobacillus spp. mean levels/counts · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

No significant difference in Lactobacillus spp. presence was reported; GRADE was not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P)

Streptococcus mutans count · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

No difference in mean Streptococcus mutans presence was reported; GRADE was not reported.

1 finding from 1 review