Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

51 questions · 54 findings · 5 reviews · Periodontology

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 27 · 50%Very low 19 · 35.2%Low 7 · 13%Moderate 1 · 1.9%High 0 · 0%

Oral cancer patients (cases) vs Healthy controls

Periodontal parameters (all measures pooled) in OC cases vs controls · Adults in case-control studies (oral cancer patients vs healthy controls)

Pooling all periodontal measures, oral cancer patients had worse periodontal status than controls (SMD 0.95, 95% CI 0.41-1.49; very high heterogeneity, I2=96.8%); ungraded. Note this pools clinically different measures.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cancer patients (cases) vs Healthy controls

Probing pocket depth · Adults in case-control studies (oral cancer patients vs healthy controls)

Periodontal pocket depth did not differ significantly between oral cancer patients and controls (SMD 1.64, 95% CI -0.20 to 3.47; very high heterogeneity); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cancer patients (cases) vs Healthy controls

Alveolar bone loss · Adults in case-control studies (oral cancer patients vs healthy controls)

Alveolar bone loss did not differ significantly between oral cancer patients and controls (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -2.34 to 2.69; extreme heterogeneity); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cancer patients (cases) vs Healthy controls

Dental caries · Adults in case-control studies (oral cancer patients vs healthy controls)

The DMFT index was significantly higher in oral cancer patients than controls (SMD 0.65, 95% CI 0.12-1.18); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cancer patients (cases) vs Healthy controls

Mean number of missing teeth in OC cases vs controls · Adults in case-control studies (oral cancer patients vs healthy controls)

The mean number of missing teeth did not differ significantly between oral cancer patients and controls (SMD 0.59, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.22); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cancer patients (cases) vs Healthy controls

Periodontitis (clinical attachment loss) · Adults in case-control studies (oral cancer patients vs healthy controls)

Clinical attachment loss was significantly greater in oral cancer patients than controls (SMD 1.94, 95% CI 0.22-3.66), though heterogeneity was very high (I2=96.7%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Oral microbiota composition · Individuals assessed for oral microbiota (mainly children and adolescents)

Oral microbiota composition differs between persons with orofacial cleft and healthy controls, synthesized qualitatively across 8 studies but not meta-analyzed (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontitis vs Individuals without periodontal disease (by LOA)

Malignant transformation (oral cancer development) · Adults in case-control studies of oral cancer; people assessed for periodontitis

Periodontitis is associated with roughly a threefold higher odds of oral cancer (pooled OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.13-4.07; low certainty of evidence), though heterogeneity is moderate (I2=52.4%).

1 finding from 1 review

Higher number of lost teeth (per one additional lost tooth) vs One fewer missing tooth

Malignant transformation (oral cancer development) · Adults in case-control studies (oral cancer patients vs healthy controls)

The number of missing teeth (per tooth) was not significantly associated with oral cancer (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92-1.01); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Missing teeth / tooth loss vs Fewer or no missing teeth

Malignant transformation (oral cancer development) · Adults in case-control studies (oral cancer patients vs healthy controls)

Pooling across all missing-teeth measures, the overall association with oral cancer was not statistically significant (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.97-1.48; high heterogeneity, I2=82.8%); 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)

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

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