Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Caries Experience and Periodontal Status in Children and Adolescents with Cleft Lip and Palate.

Veiga 2017 · Veiga Kadyja Assis, Porto Alessandra Nogueira, Matos Fernanda Zanol, et al. · Pediatric dentistry · 2017

Trial PICO

Not extracted yet. Trial-level population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design will appear here after the trial extraction run. Until then, the reviews below describe the study.

Results

Not extracted yet. Per-trial results (events, means, effect and weight as each review's forest plot reports them) will appear here after the trial extraction run.

Included by

Caries in children with and without orofacial clefting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · aetiology · 2022 · cited as Veiga 2017 · Figure 2 (forest plot, subgroup 1.1.2, listed as Veiga 2016); Table 5 (CI/RI); Tables 1-3; References

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Caries experience in the primary dentition (dmft/dmfs/dfs/deft/ds; pooled as standardized mean difference) Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P)	SMD 0.09 [-0.59, 0.76]	5 studies · 708 participants	Ungraded
Caries experience in the primary dentition (dmft/dmfs/dfs/deft/ds; pooled as standardized mean difference) Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P)	SMD 1.74 [0.24, 3.25]	4 studies · 789 participants	Ungraded
Caries experience in the primary dentition (dmft/dmfs/dfs/deft/ds; pooled as standardized mean difference) Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P)	SMD 0.27 [0.06, 0.49]	10 studies · 2366 participants	Ungraded
Caries experience in the primary dentition (dmft/dmfs/dfs/deft/ds; pooled as standardized mean difference) Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs No cleft lip and/or palate (non-CL/P)	SMD 0.46 [0.15, 0.77]	16 studies · 3863 participants	Ungraded

Oral health in patients with cleft lip and palate: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of periodontal and dental disease and oral microbiota (part 1).

Non-Cochrane · aetiology · 2025 · cited as Veiga 2017 · Table 1; Fig. 6 (PI, cleft vs controls)

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Probing Pocket Depth (PPD) Orofacial cleft (cleft lip and/or palate) as exposure vs Healthy controls without cleft	MD 0.88 [0.82, 0.95]	3 studies · 340 participants	Low
Plaque Index (PI) Orofacial cleft (cleft lip and/or palate) as exposure vs Healthy controls without cleft	MD 0.29 [0.24, 0.34]	6 studies · 1618 participants	Low

2 including reviews in total.