Non-Cochrane · aetiology · PM32375748
Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis.
Sharifi Roohollah, Jahedi Sajjad, Mozaffari Hamid Reza, et al. · BMC oral health · 2020 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01121-7
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
252
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
16
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 252 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Individuals of any age forming two independent groups: cases (caries or high caries) vs. controls (caries-free or low/very-low caries); at least 20 individuals per group; a defined DMFT score for both groups; no genetic diseases, chronic illnesses, or other disorders | 16 case-control studies (published 2008-2019); 11 Caucasian, 4 Asian and 1 mixed ethnicity; 11 in children, 3 in adults and 2 in both; genotyping by PCR-based methods |
| Intervention | Single-nucleotide polymorphisms of the LTF, ENAM, and AMELX genes (at least 2 studies per polymorphism) | 8 polymorphisms analyzed: LTF rs1126478 (4 studies, 1556 cases/1106 controls); ENAM rs1264848 (5), rs3796704 (4), rs3796703 (2); AMELX rs946252 (3), rs17878486 (4), rs6639060 (2), rs2106416 (3) |
| Comparison | Reference (wild-type) allele or genotype (non-carriers) | Reference alleles/genotypes (A allele for the LTF/ENAM G-allele SNPs; C allele for ENAM rs3796703 and the AMELX T-allele SNPs) |
| Outcomes | Dental caries susceptibility, expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI across five genetic models | Dental caries susceptibility (OR); significant overall association only for ENAM rs3796704 (G allele OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.76; GG-vs-AA+AG genotype OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06-1.87) |
| Study designs | Case-control studies (irrelevant studies, studies without sufficient data, studies without a control group, studies with <20 individuals per group, duplicates, animal studies, case reports, conference papers, reviews, and systematic reviews were excluded) | 16 case-control studies |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
Search date: Up to October 2019. Databases: Scopus; PubMed/Medline; Web of Science; Cochrane Library
Questions and results
G allele of LTF rs1126478 vs A allele of LTF rs1126478
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between G allele vs A allele of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.87, 1.10] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between G allele vs A allele of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66-2.11) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.18 [0.66, 2.11] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=4) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.98 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.10). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.87, 1.10] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between G allele vs A allele of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.87, 1.10] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between G allele vs A allele of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.87, 1.10] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between G allele vs A allele of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84-1.09) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.96 [0.84, 1.09] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
GG genotype of LTF rs1126478 vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73-1.29) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.97 [0.73, 1.29] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=4) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.33). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.80, 1.33] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80-1.33) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.80, 1.33] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80-1.33) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.80, 1.33] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.80-1.33); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.80, 1.33] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 1.49, 95% CI 0.58-3.85) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.49 [0.58, 3.85] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AG genotype of LTF rs1126478 vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80-1.43) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.07 [0.80, 1.43] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.53-1.97) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.02 [0.53, 1.97] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.25) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.80, 1.25] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.25) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.80, 1.25] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.25); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.80, 1.25] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=4) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.25). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.80, 1.25] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) of LTF rs1126478 vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81-1.23) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.81, 1.23] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=4) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.99 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.23). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.81, 1.23] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81-1.23); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.81, 1.23] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78-1.33) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.02 [0.78, 1.33] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.53-1.97) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.16 [0.53, 1.97] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81-1.23) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.81, 1.23] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
GG genotype of LTF rs1126478 vs AA + AG genotype of LTF rs1126478
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.80, 1.13] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.77-1.10) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.92 [0.77, 1.10] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.80, 1.13] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.77-2.29) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.33 [0.77, 2.29] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=4) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.13). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.80, 1.13] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.80, 1.13] | 4 studies · 2662 participants | Ungraded |
G allele of ENAM rs1264848 vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.32); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.93 [0.65, 1.32] | 5 studies · 1534 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.29) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.83, 1.29] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-1.18) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.82 [0.57, 1.18] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56-1.32) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.86 [0.56, 1.32] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.39-1.63) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.79 [0.39, 1.63] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.79-1.91) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.23 [0.79, 1.91] | 1 study | Ungraded |
GG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.64-4.09) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.62 [0.64, 4.09] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.03-5.41) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.42 [0.03, 5.41] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.18-2.45) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.67 [0.18, 2.45] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.79-2.14) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.30 [0.79, 2.14] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.19-1.82) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.58 [0.19, 1.82] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.34-2.30); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.88 [0.34, 2.30] | 5 studies · 1534 participants | Ungraded |
AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.77-3.90) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.73 [0.77, 3.90] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88-1.65); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.21 [0.88, 1.65] | 5 studies · 1534 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.97-2.53) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.57 [0.97, 2.53] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.80-1.59) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.13 [0.80, 1.59] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.66-1.51) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.66, 1.51] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.01) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.30 [0.84, 2.01] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) of ENAM rs1264848 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed 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. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.69 [0.78, 3.68] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries 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 1.45, 95% CI 0.92-2.28) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.45 [0.92, 2.28] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free 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 0.74, 95% CI 0.27-2.02) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.74 [0.27, 2.02] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian 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 1.18, 95% CI 0.86-1.62) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.18 [0.86, 1.62] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children 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 1.16, 95% CI 0.76-1.75) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.16 [0.76, 1.75] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall 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 1.24, 95% CI 0.93-1.67); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.24 [0.93, 1.67] | 5 studies · 1534 participants | Ungraded |
GG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.53-2.23) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.09 [0.53, 2.23] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44-1.58); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.83 [0.44, 1.58] | 5 studies · 1534 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.15-2.95) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.66 [0.15, 2.95] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.66-1.23) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.90 [0.66, 1.23] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37-1.17) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.66 [0.37, 1.17] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.34-1.72) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.76 [0.34, 1.72] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
G allele of ENAM rs3796704 vs A allele of ENAM rs3796704
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.57-2.15) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.11 [0.57, 2.15] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall The G allele of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (G vs A model: OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.08-1.76); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.38 [1.08, 1.76] | 4 studies · 1107 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian The G allele of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (G vs A model: OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.10-1.85) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.43 [1.10, 1.85] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63-1.50) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.97 [0.63, 1.50] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free The G allele of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (G vs A model: OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.21-2.17) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.62 [1.21, 2.17] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.92-2.32) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.46 [0.92, 2.32] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.13-2.93) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.61 [0.13, 2.93] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.96-3.62); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.86 [0.96, 3.62] | 4 studies · 1107 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free The GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (GG vs AA model: OR 2.499, 95% CI 1.19-5.24) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.499 [1.19, 5.24] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian The GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (GG vs AA model: OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.19-5.24) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.49 [1.19, 5.24] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03-2.47) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.27 [0.03, 2.47] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.03-2.47) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.27 [0.03, 2.47] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07-1.74) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.35 [0.07, 1.74] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.81-3.74) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.74 [0.81, 3.74] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.81-3.74) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.74 [0.81, 3.74] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.64-2.52); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.27 [0.64, 2.52] | 4 studies · 1107 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-1.46) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.14 [0.01, 1.46] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01-1.46) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.14 [0.01, 1.46] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) of ENAM rs3796704 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03-2.17) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.24 [0.03, 2.17] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.86-3.14); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.64 [0.86, 3.14] | 4 studies · 1107 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian The AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.05-4.45) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.16 [1.05, 4.45] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03-2.17) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.24 [0.03, 2.17] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free The AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.05-4.45) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.16 [1.05, 4.45] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.11-2.56) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.54 [0.11, 2.56] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs3796704
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall The GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06-1.87); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.41 [1.06, 1.87] | 4 studies · 1107 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian The GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.91) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.41 [1.04, 1.91] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66-1.68) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.05 [0.66, 1.68] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.67-3.05) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.43 [0.67, 3.05] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children The GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.02-2.85) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.71 [1.02, 2.85] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free The GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 was associated with increased dental caries risk (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.17-2.39) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.67 [1.17, 2.39] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
T allele of ENAM rs3796703 vs C allele of ENAM rs3796703
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between T allele vs C allele of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.24-3.58); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.92 [0.24, 3.58] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=2) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.24 to 3.58). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.92 [0.24, 3.58] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between T allele vs C allele of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.24-3.58) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.92 [0.24, 3.58] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between T allele vs C allele of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.24-3.58) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.92 [0.24, 3.58] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
TT genotype of ENAM rs3796703 vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian 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. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.22 [0.25, 108.96] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=2) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 5.22 (95% CI 0.25 to 108.96). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.22 [0.25, 108.96] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children 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 Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.22 [0.25, 108.96] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall 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); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.22 [0.25, 108.96] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
CT genotype of ENAM rs3796703 vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children 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 Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.23, 3.48] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian 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. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.23, 3.48] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall 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); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.23, 3.48] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=2) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.89 (95% CI 0.23 to 3.48). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.23, 3.48] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of ENAM rs3796703 vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.23-3.63); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.90 [0.23, 3.63] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.23-3.63) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.90 [0.23, 3.63] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=2) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.23 to 3.63). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.90 [0.23, 3.63] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of ENAM rs3796703 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.23-3.63) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.90 [0.23, 3.63] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
TT genotype of ENAM rs3796703 vs CC + CT genotype of ENAM rs3796703
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall 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. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.90 [0.92, 9.12] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian 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) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.90 [0.92, 9.12] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=2) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 2.90 (95% CI 0.92 to 9.12). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.90 [0.92, 9.12] | 2 studies · 1152 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children 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) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.90 [0.92, 9.12] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
T allele of AMELX rs946252 vs C allele of AMELX rs946252
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53-1.86) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.53, 1.86] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.35-2.55) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.35, 2.55] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.77-1.91) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.21 [0.77, 1.91] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68-1.51); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.01 [0.68, 1.51] | 3 studies · 298 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53-1.86) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.53, 1.86] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.35-2.55) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.35, 2.55] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
TT genotype of AMELX rs946252 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.61-3.92) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.54 [0.61, 3.92] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.28-3.75) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.28, 3.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.54-3.76) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.42 [0.54, 3.76] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.58-2.75); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.27 [0.58, 2.75] | 3 studies · 298 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.54-3.76) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.42 [0.54, 3.76] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.28-3.75) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.28, 3.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
CT genotype of AMELX rs946252 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.75-2.81); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.45 [0.75, 2.81] | 3 studies · 298 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.40-2.25) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.40, 2.25] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 2.80, 95% CI 0.93-8.43) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.80 [0.93, 8.43] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.40-2.25) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.40, 2.25] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 2.80, 95% CI 0.93-8.43) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.80 [0.93, 8.43] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.61-2.49) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.24 [0.61, 2.49] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs946252 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.66-2.33) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.24 [0.66, 2.33] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.68-2.14); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.21 [0.68, 2.14] | 3 studies · 298 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.67-4.01) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.63 [0.67, 4.01] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.67-4.01) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.63 [0.67, 4.01] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.46-2.07) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.46, 2.07] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.46-2.07) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.46, 2.07] | 1 study | Ungraded |
TT genotype of AMELX rs946252 vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.56-2.83) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.26 [0.56, 2.83] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian 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 Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.73 [0.19, 2.87] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free 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. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.73 [0.19, 2.87] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43-1.56); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.82 [0.43, 1.56] | 3 studies · 298 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.29-3.75) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.29, 3.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.29-3.75) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.29, 3.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
T allele of AMELX rs17878486 vs C allele of AMELX rs17878486
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.25-7.75) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.38 [0.25, 7.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.81-6.24); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.25 [0.81, 6.24] | 4 studies · 442 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 2.48, 95% CI 0.76-8.05) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.48 [0.76, 8.05] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries The T allele of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (T vs C model: OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.06-3.11) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.82 [1.06, 3.11] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 2.87, 95% CI 0.35-23.23) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.87 [0.35, 23.23] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed The T allele of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (T vs C model: OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.06-3.30) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.87 [1.06, 3.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.25-7.75) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.38 [0.25, 7.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 2.87, 95% CI 0.35-23.23) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.87 [0.35, 23.23] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
TT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 5.12, 95% CI 0.09-278.85) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.12 [0.09, 278.85] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed The TT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (TT vs CC model: OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.19-12.21) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 3.82 [1.19, 12.21] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 4.69, 95% CI 0.55-40.16) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 4.69 [0.55, 40.16] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 5.12, 95% CI 0.09-278.85) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.12 [0.09, 278.85] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 3.59, 95% CI 0.55-23.32); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 3.59 [0.55, 23.32] | 4 studies · 442 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries The TT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (TT vs CC model: OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.14-9.43) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 3.28 [1.14, 9.43] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.04-23.52) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.93 [0.04, 23.52] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.04-23.52) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.93 [0.04, 23.52] | 1 study | Ungraded |
CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.37-7.92) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.72 [0.37, 7.92] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.12-8.23) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.12, 8.23] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.36-5.80); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.45 [0.36, 5.80] | 4 studies · 442 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01-12.82) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.33 [0.01, 12.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.12-8.23) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.12, 8.23] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed The CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (CT vs CC model: OR 5.11, 95% CI 1.33-19.72) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.11 [1.33, 19.72] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries The CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (CT vs CC model: OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.04-11.28) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 3.42 [1.04, 11.28] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Sensitivity: study Ergoz 2014 excluded The CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (CT vs CC model: OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.36-6.94) after excluding the outlier study (Ergoz 2014); certainty not graded. Source: Results (Sensitivity analysis paragraph) · same question in other reviews | OR 3.07 [1.36, 6.94] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01-12.82) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.33 [0.01, 12.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs17878486 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Sensitivity: study Ergoz 2014 excluded The CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 5.72, 95% CI 2.83-11.59) after excluding the outlier study (Ergoz 2014); certainty not graded. Source: Results (Sensitivity analysis paragraph) · same question in other reviews | OR 5.72 [2.83, 11.59] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.10-42.44) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.03 [0.10, 42.44] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 2.30, 95% CI 0.51-10.33); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.30 [0.51, 10.33] | 4 studies · 442 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed The CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 4.03, 95% CI 1.27-12.75) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 4.03 [1.27, 12.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 2.65, 95% CI 0.49-14.35) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.65 [0.49, 14.35] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.04-22.53) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.04, 22.53] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries The CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 3.43, 95% CI 1.21-9.75) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 3.43 [1.21, 9.75] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.04-22.53) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.04, 22.53] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.10-42.44) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.03 [0.10, 42.44] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
TT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.30-11.85) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.89 [0.30, 11.85] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 3.10, 95% CI 0.85-11.28); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 3.10 [0.85, 11.28] | 4 studies · 442 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.30-11.58) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.89 [0.30, 11.85] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Caries-free No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 6.17, 95% CI 0.41-92.05) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 6.17 [0.41, 92.05] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.75-2.77) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.44 [0.75, 2.77] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 6.17, 95% CI 0.41-92.05) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 6.17 [0.41, 92.05] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 3.55, 95% CI 0.72-17.60) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 3.55 [0.72, 17.60] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.69-2.80) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.39 [0.69, 2.80] | 1 study | Ungraded |
T allele of AMELX rs6639060 vs C allele of AMELX rs6639060
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults 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 Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.08 [0.63, 1.85] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian 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. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.08 [0.63, 1.85] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall 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); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.08 [0.63, 1.85] | 2 studies · 301 participants | Ungraded |
TT genotype of AMELX rs6639060 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.43-2.51) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.43, 2.51] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.43-2.51); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.43, 2.51] | 2 studies · 301 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.43-2.51) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.43, 2.51] | 1 study | Ungraded |
CT genotype of AMELX rs6639060 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.49-3.30) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.27 [0.49, 3.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.49-3.30) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.27 [0.49, 3.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.49-3.30); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.27 [0.49, 3.30] | 2 studies · 301 participants | Ungraded |
CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs6639060 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.56-2.29) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.14 [0.56, 2.29] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.56-2.29); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.14 [0.56, 2.29] | 2 studies · 301 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.56-2.29) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.14 [0.56, 2.29] | 1 study | Ungraded |
TT genotype of AMELX rs6639060 vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs6639060
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42-2.39); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.42, 2.39] | 2 studies · 301 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42-2.39) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.42, 2.39] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Adults No significant association between TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42-2.39) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.42, 2.39] | 1 study | Ungraded |
T allele of AMELX rs2106416 vs C allele of AMELX rs2106416
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children 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) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.59 [0.16, 2.11] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=3) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.59 (95% CI 0.16 to 2.11). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.59 [0.16, 2.11] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall 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. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.59 [0.16, 2.11] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.77-2.03) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.25 [0.77, 2.03] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
TT genotype of AMELX rs2106416 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall 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. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.83 [0.47, 7.06] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children 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) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.83 [0.47, 7.06] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian 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) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.83 [0.47, 7.06] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=3) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 1.83 (95% CI 0.47 to 7.06). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.83 [0.47, 7.06] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
CT genotype of AMELX rs2106416 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.13-2.25); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.55 [0.13, 2.25] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.65-2.22) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.20 [0.65, 2.22] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=3) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.55 (95% CI 0.13 to 2.25). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.55 [0.13, 2.25] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.13-2.25) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.55 [0.13, 2.25] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs2106416 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.15-2.31) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.59 [0.15, 2.31] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.69-2.27) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.25 [0.69, 2.27] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.15-2.31); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.59 [0.15, 2.31] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=3) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 0.59 (95% CI 0.15 to 2.31). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.59 [0.15, 2.31] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
TT genotype of AMELX rs2106416 vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs2106416
Population: Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian 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. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.67 [0.44, 6.34] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall (n=3) Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls The pooled odds ratio was 1.67 (95% CI 0.44 to 6.34). Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.67 [0.44, 6.34] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children 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 Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.67 [0.44, 6.34] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Dental caries susceptibility Overall 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); certainty not graded. Source: Table 3 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.67 [0.44, 6.34] | 3 studies · 285 participants | Ungraded |
LTF rs1126478 G allele vs A allele
Population: Age group: Children (n=4) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children (n=4) The pooled odds ratio was 0.98 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.10). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.87, 1.10] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
LTF rs1126478 GG genotype vs AA genotype
Population: Age group: Children (n=4) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children (n=4) The pooled odds ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.33). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.80, 1.33] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
LTF rs1126478 AG genotype vs AA genotype
Population: Age group: Children (n=4) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children (n=4) The pooled odds ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.25). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.80, 1.25] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
LTF rs1126478 AG + GG genotype vs AA genotype
Population: Age group: Children (n=4) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children (n=4) The pooled odds ratio was 0.99 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.23). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.81, 1.23] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
LTF rs1126478 GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype
Population: Age group: Children (n=4) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Age group: Children (n=4) The pooled odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.13). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.80, 1.13] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
ENAM rs3796703 T allele vs C allele
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 0.92 (95% CI 0.24 to 3.58). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.92 [0.24, 3.58] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ENAM rs3796703 TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 5.22 (95% CI 0.25 to 108.96). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.22 [0.25, 108.96] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ENAM rs3796703 CT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 0.89 (95% CI 0.23 to 3.48). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.23, 3.48] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ENAM rs3796703 CT + TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.23 to 3.63). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.90 [0.23, 3.63] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ENAM rs3796703 TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 2.90 (95% CI 0.92 to 9.12). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.90 [0.92, 9.12] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 T allele vs C allele
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.35 to 2.55). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.35, 2.55] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 1.42 (95% CI 0.54 to 3.76). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.42 [0.54, 3.76] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 CT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 2.80 (95% CI 0.93 to 8.43). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.80 [0.93, 8.43] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 CT + TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 1.63 (95% CI 0.67 to 4.01). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.63 [0.67, 4.01] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 0.73 (95% CI 0.19 to 2.87). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.73 [0.19, 2.87] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 T allele vs C allele
Population: Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 0.99 (95% CI 0.53 to 1.86). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.53, 1.86] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.28 to 3.75). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.28, 3.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 CT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 0.95 (95% CI 0.40 to 2.25). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.95 [0.40, 2.25] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 CT + TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 0.98 (95% CI 0.46 to 2.07). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.46, 2.07] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Mixed (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.04 (95% CI 0.29 to 3.75). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.29, 3.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs946252 TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Individuals with caries/high caries and caries-free or low-caries controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Control group: Low caries (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.03 (95% CI 0.28 to 3.75). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.03 [0.28, 3.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 T allele vs C allele
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 2.87 (95% CI 0.35 to 23.23). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.87 [0.35, 23.23] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 5.12 (95% CI 0.09 to 278.85). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 5.12 [0.09, 278.85] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 CT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.12 to 8.23). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.12, 8.23] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 CT + TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 2.03 (95% CI 0.10 to 42.44). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 2.03 [0.10, 42.44] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=2) The pooled odds ratio was 6.17 (95% CI 0.41 to 92.05). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 6.17 [0.41, 92.05] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 T allele vs C allele
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.38 (95% CI 0.25 to 7.75). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.38 [0.25, 7.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 0.93 (95% CI 0.04 to 23.52). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.93 [0.04, 23.52] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 CT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 12.82). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.33 [0.01, 12.82] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs17878486 CT + TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Asian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Asian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 0.89 (95% CI 0.04 to 22.53). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.04, 22.53] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs6639060 T allele vs C allele
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.08 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.85). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.08 [0.63, 1.85] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs6639060 TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.04 (95% CI 0.43 to 2.51). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.43, 2.51] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs6639060 CT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.27 (95% CI 0.49 to 3.30). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.27 [0.49, 3.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs6639060 CT + TT genotype vs CC genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.14 (95% CI 0.56 to 2.29). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.14 [0.56, 2.29] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMELX rs6639060 TT genotype vs CC + CT genotype
Population: Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) individuals with caries/high caries and controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries susceptibility Ethnicity: Caucasian (n=1) The pooled odds ratio was 1.00 (95% CI 0.42 to 2.39). Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.42, 2.39] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Included primary studies 16
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Azevedo 2010 Analysis of the association between lactotransferrin (LTF) gene polymorphism and dental caries. PMID:20485928 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Borilova Linhartova 2018 Lack of association between ENAM gene polymorphism and dental caries in primary and permanent teeth in Czech children DOI:10.1007/s00784-017-2280-2 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Devang Divakar 2019 Association between ENAM polymorphisms and dental caries in children. PMID:31048997 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ergöz 2014 Genetic variation in Ameloblastin is associated with caries in asthmatic children. PMID:24203249 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gasse 2013 Common SNPs of <i>AmelogeninX (AMELX)</i> and Dental Caries Susceptibility DOI:10.1177/0022034513482941 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gerreth 2016 Association of ENAM gene single nucleotide polymorphisms with dental caries in Polish children. PMID:26910531 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gerreth 2017 Chosen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of enamel formation genes and dental caries in a population of Polish children DOI:10.17219/acem/63024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Jeremias 2013 Genes expressed in dental enamel development are associated with molar-incisor hypomineralization. PMID:23790503 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kang 2011 Association between <i>AMELX</i> polymorphisms and dental caries in Koreans DOI:10.1111/j.1601-0825.2010.01766.x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Koohpeima 2018 Evaluation of caries experience in two genders and ENAM polymorphism in Iranian adults DOI:10.1016/j.mgene.2018.05.002 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Olszowski 2012 <i>MBL2</i>, <i>MASP2</i>, <i>AMELX</i>, and <i>ENAM</i> gene polymorphisms and dental caries in Polish children DOI:10.1111/j.1601-0825.2011.01887.x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ouryouji 2008 Analysis of mutations in the amelogenin and the enamelin genes in severe caries in Japanese pediatric patients DOI:10.1016/s0917-2394(08)70126-5 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Volckova 2014 Lack of Association between Lactotransferrin Polymorphism and Dental Caries DOI:10.1159/000351689 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wang 2017 The association of Enamelin, Lactoferrin, and Tumour necrosis factor alpha gene polymorphisms with high caries susceptibility in Chinese… DOI:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2017.03.023 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wang 2018 Lack of association between <i>LTF</i> gene polymorphisms and different caries status in primary dentition DOI:10.1111/odi.12939 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yildiz 2016 Gene-environment Interactions in the Etiology of Dental Caries DOI:10.1177/0022034515605281 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match).
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| The association between genetic variants in lactotransferrin and dental caries: a meta- and gene-based analysis. (2020) | 1 | 0.05 |