Non-Cochrane · aetiology · PM39394075
Association of vitamin D receptor gene polymorphisms with caries risk in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Qin Xiurong, Wang Mei, Wang Linlin, et al. · BMC pediatrics · 2024 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s12887-024-05127-w
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
54
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
10
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 54 · 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 | Subjects under 18 years of age (children), with or without dental caries | Children aged 3-15 years (n=10 studies: 9 case-control, 1 cross-sectional; China, Czech Republic, Turkey, Brazil, India) |
| Intervention | VDR gene SNPs as exposure: ApaI(rs7975232), BsmI(rs1544410), FokI(rs2228570), TaqI(rs731236), TaqI/BglI(rs739837), FokI(rs10735810), Cdx-2(rs11568820) | 7 VDR SNPs; 6 meta-analyzed (TaqI rs731236, TaqI/BglI rs739837, FokI rs10735810, FokI rs2228570, ApaI rs7975232, BsmI rs1544410); Cdx-2 rs11568820 not meta-analyzed (1 study) |
| Comparison | With vs without dental caries, confirmed by clinical examination (caries group vs caries-free group) | Caries group (DMFT/dmft >=1) vs caries-free group (DMFT/dmft =0) |
| Outcomes | Association of VDR SNP with dental caries risk (OR under allelic, recessive, dominant, over-dominant genetic models) | Significant: FokI(rs10735810) allele C vs T (OR 1.33) and dominant CC+CT vs TT (OR 1.87); TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant TT+CC vs TC (OR 1.33). Non-significant: TaqI/BglI(rs739837), FokI(rs2228570), ApaI(rs7975232), BsmI(rs1544410) |
| Study designs | Observational studies (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) | 9 case-control + 1 cross-sectional studies |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
Search date: 31 August 2022. Databases: PubMed; Cochrane Library; Embase; Web of Science; CNKI; Wanfang; Cqvip
Questions and results
TT genotype vs TC+CC genotypes
Population: Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) · PCR-RFLP genotyping In the PCR-RFLP genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) recessive model: TT vs TC+CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.49); ungraded. Source: Table 10 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.49 [0.97, 2.27] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+CC vs TC) · Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping In the Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant model: TT+CC vs TC showed a significant association with caries (OR 1.52); ungraded. Source: Table 10 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.52 [1.10, 2.10] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs C) · Asian ethnicity In the Asian ethnicity subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) allelic model: T vs C showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.98); ungraded. Source: Table 9 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.98 [0.65, 1.50] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) · PCR-RFLP genotyping In the PCR-RFLP genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) dominant model: TT+TC vs CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.70); ungraded. Source: Table 10 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.70 [0.47, 1.05] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs C) · Permanent dentition In the Permanent dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) allelic model: T vs C showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.90); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.90 [0.54, 1.49] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) · Permanent dentition In the Permanent dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) recessive model: TT vs TC+CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.36); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.36 [0.89, 2.08] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs C) TaqI(rs731236) allele distribution (T vs C) was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 1.01); ungraded. Source: Fig. 2a (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.01 [0.83, 1.21] | 6 studies · 1986 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) · Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping In the Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) dominant model: TT+TC vs CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.87); ungraded. Source: Table 10 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.87 [0.47, 1.61] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) · Primary dentition In the Primary dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) dominant model: TT+TC vs CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.25); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.25 [0.08, 20.04] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) · Caucasian ethnicity In the Caucasian ethnicity subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) dominant model: TT+TC vs CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.84); ungraded. Source: Table 9 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.84 [0.50, 1.39] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs C) · PCR-RFLP genotyping In the PCR-RFLP genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) allelic model: T vs C showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.79); ungraded. Source: Table 10 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.79 [0.60, 1.04] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs C) · Mixed dentition In the Mixed dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) allelic model: T vs C showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.80); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.80 [0.55, 1.15] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+CC vs TC) · Primary dentition In the Primary dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant model: TT+CC vs TC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.49); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.49 [0.97, 2.28] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) · Asian ethnicity In the Asian ethnicity subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) dominant model: TT+TC vs CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.69); ungraded. Source: Table 9 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.69 [0.44, 1.07] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+CC vs TC) · Asian ethnicity In the Asian ethnicity subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant model: TT+CC vs TC showed a significant association with caries (OR 1.38); ungraded. Source: Table 9 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.38 [1.02, 1.87] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) at TaqI(rs731236) showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.75); ungraded. Source: Fig. 2c (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.75 [0.54, 1.05] | 5 studies · 1606 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+CC vs TC) · PCR-RFLP genotyping In the PCR-RFLP genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant model: TT+CC vs TC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.15); ungraded. Source: Table 10 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.15 [0.83, 1.60] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) · Caucasian ethnicity In the Caucasian ethnicity subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) recessive model: TT vs TC+CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.05); ungraded. Source: Table 9 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.05 [0.56, 1.98] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs C) · Primary dentition In the Primary dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) allelic model: T vs C showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.45); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.45 [0.96, 2.18] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs C) · Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping In the Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) allelic model: T vs C showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.24); ungraded. Source: Table 10 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.24 [0.96, 1.60] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+CC vs TC) · Permanent dentition In the Permanent dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant model: TT+CC vs TC showed a significant association with caries (OR 1.48); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.48 [1.07, 2.03] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) · Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping In the Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) recessive model: TT vs TC+CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.83); ungraded. Source: Table 10 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.83 [0.54, 1.29] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) at TaqI(rs731236) showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.04); ungraded. Source: Fig. 2b (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.21 [0.93, 1.56] | 5 studies · 1586 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) · Mixed dentition In the Mixed dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) recessive model: TT vs TC+CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.73); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.73 [0.43, 1.24] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+CC vs TC) Homozygous (TT or CC) genotype at TaqI(rs731236) was associated with higher caries risk than heterozygous (TC) under the over-dominant model (OR 1.33); ungraded. Source: Fig. 2d (forest); Table 7; Abstract · same question in other reviews | OR 1.33 [1.06, 1.67] | 6 studies · 1986 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+CC vs TC) · Mixed dentition In the Mixed dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant model: TT+CC vs TC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.85); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.85 [0.50, 1.45] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) · Asian ethnicity In the Asian ethnicity subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) recessive model: TT vs TC+CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.16); ungraded. Source: Table 9 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.16 [0.85, 1.60] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) · Mixed dentition In the Mixed dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) dominant model: TT+TC vs CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.81); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.81 [0.44, 1.51] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TC vs CC) · Permanent dentition In the Permanent dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) dominant model: TT+TC vs CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.72); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.72 [0.48, 1.07] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TC+CC) · Primary dentition In the Primary dentition subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) recessive model: TT vs TC+CC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.49); ungraded. Source: Table 8 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.49 [0.97, 2.27] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+CC vs TC) · Caucasian ethnicity In the Caucasian ethnicity subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant model: TT+CC vs TC showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.26); ungraded. Source: Table 9 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.26 [0.88, 1.80] | NR | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs C) · Caucasian ethnicity In the Caucasian ethnicity subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) allelic model: T vs C showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.00); ungraded. Source: Table 9 (TaqI subgroup meta-analysis) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.72, 1.39] | NR | Ungraded |
TT+TG genotypes vs GG genotype
Population: Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Dominant model (TT+TG vs GG) TaqI/BglI(rs739837) dominant model: TT+TG vs GG was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 1.09); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.09 [0.76, 1.58] | 3 studies · 796 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (T vs G) TaqI/BglI(rs739837) allelic model: T vs G was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 1.00); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.00 [0.81, 1.23] | 3 studies · 796 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (TT vs TG+GG) TaqI/BglI(rs739837) recessive model: TT vs TG+GG was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 0.93); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.93 [0.68, 1.29] | 3 studies · 796 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (TT+GG vs TG) TaqI/BglI(rs739837) over-dominant model: TT+GG vs TG was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 0.89); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.66, 1.20] | 3 studies · 796 participants | Ungraded |
CC+CT genotypes vs TT genotype
Population: Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Dominant model (CC+CT vs TT) CC+CT genotype at FokI(rs10735810) was associated with ~1.87-fold higher caries risk than TT (dominant model, OR 1.87); ungraded. Source: Fig. 4c (forest); Table 7; Abstract · same question in other reviews | OR 1.87 [1.15, 3.04] | 3 studies · 1329 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (C vs T) FokI(rs10735810) C allele was significantly associated with higher caries risk vs T allele (pooled OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.71); ungraded. Source: Fig. 4a (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.33 [1.03, 1.71] | 3 studies · 1329 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (CC vs CT+TT) Recessive model (CC vs CT+TT) at FokI(rs10735810) showed no significant association with caries (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.97-1.55); ungraded. Source: Fig. 4b (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.23 [0.97, 1.55] | 3 studies · 1329 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (CC+TT vs CT) Over-dominant model (CC+TT vs CT) at FokI(rs10735810) showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.83); ungraded. Source: Fig. 4d (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.83 [0.67, 1.04] | 3 studies · 1329 participants | Ungraded |
AA genotype vs AG+GG genotypes
Population: Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Recessive model (AA vs AG+GG) FokI(rs2228570) recessive model: AA vs AG+GG was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 1.09); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.09 [0.70, 1.71] | 3 studies · 855 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (AA+AG vs GG) FokI(rs2228570) dominant model: AA+AG vs GG was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 1.07); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.07 [0.59, 1.96] | 3 studies · 855 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (AA+GG vs AG) FokI(rs2228570) over-dominant model: AA+GG vs AG was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 1.04); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.64, 1.70] | 3 studies · 855 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (A vs G) FokI(rs2228570) allelic model: A vs G was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 1.07); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.07 [0.70, 1.64] | 3 studies · 855 participants | Ungraded |
CC genotype vs CA+AA genotypes
Population: Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Recessive model (CC vs CA+AA) ApaI(rs7975232) recessive model: CC vs CA+AA was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 0.87); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.87 [0.70, 1.09] | 3 studies · 1327 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Dominant model (CC+CA vs AA) ApaI(rs7975232) dominant model: CC+CA vs AA was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 0.91); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.91 [0.55, 1.50] | 3 studies · 1327 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (CC+AA vs CA) ApaI(rs7975232) over-dominant model: CC+AA vs CA was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 0.91); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.91 [0.73, 1.14] | 3 studies · 1327 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (C vs A) ApaI(rs7975232) allelic model: C vs A was not significantly associated with dental caries (OR 0.89); ungraded. Source: Table 7 (Figs. S4-S12 supplementary) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.89 [0.70, 1.14] | 3 studies · 1327 participants | Ungraded |
GG genotype vs GA+AA genotypes
Population: Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Recessive model (GG vs GA+AA), Zhang 2006 removed · Sensitivity analysis (Zhang 2006 excluded) After removing Zhang 2006, the recessive model at BsmI(rs1544410) remained non-significant (OR 0.86); ungraded. Source: Fig. 5c (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.86 [0.48, 1.54] | 3 studies · 1329 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Allelic model (G vs A) BsmI(rs1544410) allele distribution (G vs A) was not significantly associated with caries (OR 1.56; high heterogeneity); ungraded. Source: Fig. 5a (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 1.56 [0.76, 3.24] | 4 studies · 1741 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (AA+GG vs GA), Zhang 2006 removed · Sensitivity analysis (Zhang 2006 excluded) After removing Zhang 2006, the over-dominant model at BsmI(rs1544410) remained non-significant (OR 0.85); ungraded. Source: Fig. 5e (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.85 [0.48, 1.49] | 3 studies · 1329 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Recessive model (GG vs GA+AA) Recessive model (GG vs GA+AA) at BsmI(rs1544410) showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.58; high heterogeneity); ungraded. Source: Fig. 5b (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.58 [0.26, 1.30] | 4 studies · 1741 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries Over-dominant model (AA+GG vs GA) Over-dominant model (AA+GG vs GA) at BsmI(rs1544410) showed no significant association with caries (OR 0.60; high heterogeneity); ungraded. Source: Fig. 5d (forest); Table 7 · same question in other reviews | OR 0.60 [0.28, 1.25] | 4 studies · 1741 participants | Ungraded |
Cdx-2(rs11568820) A allele / genotype vs G allele / reference genotype
Population: Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Not meta-analyzed (single study) Cdx-2(rs11568820) was reported by only one study and was not meta-analyzed; its association with caries risk is uncertain (ungraded). Source: Results 'Meta-analysis'; Table 5; Table 6 · same question in other reviews | Cdx-2(rs11568820) was reported by only one study (Qin 2019; 303 caries, 245 caries-free) and was therefore not subjected to meta-analysis (Results 'Meta-analysis'; Table 6). | 1 study · 548 participants | Ungraded |
Included primary studies 10
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aribam 2020 Single-nucleotide polymorphism in Vitamin D receptor gene and its association with dental caries in children. PMID:32174623 | 1 other review | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Cogulu 2016 The Role of Vitamin D Receptor Polymorphisms on Dental Caries. PMID:27472568 | 1 other review | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Holla 2017 Vitamin D Receptor TaqI Gene Polymorphism and Dental Caries in Czech Children. PMID:27889775 | 1 other review | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kong 2017 The relationship between vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism and deciduous tooth decay in Chinese children. PMID:28697775 | 1 other review | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Qin 2019 Investigation of Interaction between Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms and Environmental Factors in Early Childhood Caries in Chinese… PMID:31930121 | 1 other review | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yu 2017 Association between Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Vitamin D Receptor Gene Polymorphisms and Permanent Tooth Caries Susceptibility to… PMID:29259981 | 1 other review | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Barbosa 2020 Vitamin D receptor FokI and BglI genetic polymorphisms, dental caries, and gingivitis. PMID:32902920 | this review only | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Fatturi 2020 The relationship between molar incisor hypomineralization, dental caries, socioeconomic factors, and polymorphisms in the vitamin D… PMID:32236726 | this review only | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Madalena 2020 Evaluation of vitamin D receptor genetic polymorphisms with dental caries and developmental defects of enamel in Brazilian children DOI:10.1016/j.pdj.2020.06.003 | this review only | Dental caries | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Zhang 2006 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Dental caries | 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Association Between the TaqI (rs731236 T>C) Gene Polymorphism and Dental Caries Risk: A Meta-analysis. (2021) | 6 | 0.40 |