SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
Does the early loss of primary teeth impact the oral health-related quality of life of children? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How do clinicians treat irreversibly inflamed and necrotic primary molars? A worldwide survey of decision-making and practice.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the cyclic fatigue resistance of four specialist nickel-titanium files for primary teeth under simulated body temperature.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
- Assessment of Alterations in Permanent Premolars After Endodontic Treatment of Predecessor Primary Molars: A Prospective Study.International journal of paediatric dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis systematic review aimed to assess the impact of early loss of primary teeth on children's Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL). MATERIALS AND
methodsElectronic searches were conducted in eight databases, including grey literature, up to February 2025. The PECOS strategy was employed to identify studies evaluating the impact of early loss of primary teeth on children's OHRQoL. Studies evaluating permanent tooth loss were excluded. The risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated using Joanna Briggs' checklists for observational studies and the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for randomized clinical trials. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted comparing the mean scores of OHRQoL questionnaires between children with and without early loss of primary teeth. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
resultsFive studies were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. Three studies fulfilled all items of the risk of bias checklists. The meta-analysis revealed that children with early loss of primary molars scored an average of 14.38 points higher on the OHRQoL questionnaire (95% CI: 2.13-26.64) compared to those without early primary molar loss, indicating a poorer OHRQoL. The certainty of evidence was considered very low.
conclusionsThe early loss of primary molars negatively impacted the OHRQoL of schoolchildren aged 8 to 10 years, as evidenced by higher OHRQoL scores. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings directly affect clinical practice, indicating that early loss of primary molars is associated with poorer OHRQoL in children aged 8 to 10 years. This information is valuable for dentists, pediatricians, and other healthcare professionals involved in children's oral health care. REGISTRATION: This systematic review was registered under the protocol registration code CRD42023439971.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40153122What 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.