ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Sustainability of Oral Healthcare Services: A Mapping Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interprofessional oral health promotion in rural primary healthcare systems: a scoping review.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Sustainable procurement practices in sub-Saharan African health systems: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesEnvironmental sustainability is increasingly recognized as a key component of healthcare governance, and dentistry represents a high-impact subsector due to its intensive use of materials, resources, and biosafety-driven disposables. Despite rising scientific interest, available evidence remains fragmented and methodologically heterogeneous. This study aims to systematically map the existing review-based evidence on sustainability in oral healthcare services.
methodsThe protocol was prospectively registered on OSF. Narrative, scoping, and systematic reviews evaluating sustainability within oral healthcare services were eligible. Comprehensive searches were conducted in Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, Cochrane Library, and regional databases (WPRIM, WHOLIS, BBO, BDENF, IBECS, PIE, ColecionaSUS), without language or date restrictions. Two reviewers independently screened studies via Rayyan, resolved discrepancies by consensus, and extracted descriptive and thematic data using a structured Population-Concept-Context eligibility framework. A qualitative inductive synthesis identified recurring domains, and methodological rigor was appraised with a modified 12-item AMSTAR-2 tool.
resultsOf 5793 records retrieved, 17 reviews met inclusion criteria (8 narrative, 5 scoping, 4 systematic). Most publications (82.4%) were from the past five years. Three thematic axes were identified: (1) the 4Rs (rethink, reduce, recycle, reuse); (2) waste and effluent management; and (3) barriers, practices, and sustainability policies. Evidence was strongly concentrated in high-income countries, and methodological quality varied widely, with ten reviews scoring below 60% on AMSTAR-2.
conclusionsReview-based evidence on sustainable dentistry is expanding yet remains limited and operational in focus. The literature remains disproportionately centered on operational issues-primarily waste management and material consumption-while broader systemic determinants such as governance, equity, financing, and professional education receive comparatively little attention. Strengthening methodological rigor, harmonizing sustainability indicators, and advancing empirical evaluations are essential for guiding equitable and environmentally responsible oral healthcare systems.
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.