ReviewDental research journal2023
Is caries prevalence site-specific in cleft lip and palate patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Dental research journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Putting 'STOP' to Excess Caries of Cleft Lip and Palate Patients.International dental journal · 2025Pooled it
- The Role of Appearance in Peer Interactions for Early Adolescent Cleft Lip and Palate Patients Post-Repair.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous systematic reviews indicate that there is an increased prevalence of caries in cleft patients in comparison to their healthy control group. To date, the prevalence of caries between unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) and bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) has not been quantitatively evaluated. This review aims to include published studies that examined caries prevalence in patients with UCLP and BCLP to find out whether a quantitative difference exists in caries experience among them. Materials and Methods: Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost databases were searched from inception to November 2021. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO registration no. CRD2021292425. Prevalence-based studies that evaluated caries experience using the decayed-missing-filled teeth (DMFT) index in the permanent dentition or dmft in case of primary dentition in patients with UCLP or BCLP were included in the analysis with the outcome given in mean and standard deviation. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effect model through a forest plot. An adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cross-sectional studies was modified to assess the quality of included studies. Results: Three studies were included in the review. The difference in caries prevalence was statistically significant in the permanent and primary dentition which were evaluated using DMFT and dmft scores with Conclusion: The outcome of the study indicates a higher occurrence of caries in patients with BCLP than UCLP in both permanent and primary dentition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38020250PMC10680076W4389180549What 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.