ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2020
Dental caries experience, care index and restorative index in children with learning disabilities and children without learning disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dental Treatment under General Anesthesia in Pre-School Children and Schoolchildren with Special Healthcare Needs: A Comparative Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Insights on dental care management and prevention in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). What is new?Frontiers in oral health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data sources MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science.Study selection Two reviewers independently selected observational studies which compared caries experience between children with learning disabilities (CLD) and children with no learning disabilities (CNLD). Data extraction and synthesis DMFT/dmft, Care Index (CI) and Restorative Index (RI) data was extracted from each study. Meta analyses were conducted on the overall data and then on the following subgroups: Down's syndrome, autism and mixed learning disabilities. An adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess bias. Results Twenty five comparative cross sectional studies from eighteen countries were included in the review. The standardised mean difference in DMFT between CLD and CNLD was 0.43 (95% CI; 0.91 to 0.05 I² >95%) and for dmft was 0.41 (95% CI; 0.14 to 0.96 I² >95%). The only significant difference revealed by sub group analyses of the three main disability groups was lower caries experience in the permanent dentition of children with Down's syndrome (SMD = 0.73; 95% CI; 1.28 to 0.18). There was a larger difference between mean CI and mean RI for CLD than for CNLD, however, the standard deviations were large and no variance data was provided so meta-analyses could not be completed.Conclusions Overall there was no difference in caries experience between CLD and CNLD. However, sub group analysis showed that children with Down's syndrome had lower levels of caries than CNLD but this may be due to the delayed eruption of the permanent teeth commonly seen with Down's syndrome. There was limited data suggesting that caries in permanent teeth was more commonly treated by extraction in CLD than in CNLD, however, this was based on only eight studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.