SynthesisBMC public health2026
Oral health in migrant population of Germany: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveMigrants living in Germany constitute a large and heterogeneous population that is exposed to socioeconomic disadvantages, language barriers and difficulties navigating the health system, all of which may negatively affect oral health and access to dental care. The aim of this study was to systematically review and synthesize available evidence on differences in oral health status and dental service utilization between migrant and non-migrant populations in Germany.
methodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed observational and clinical studies conducted in Germany was performed. Studies meeting predefined inclusion criteria were selected, focusing on oral health indicators such as dental caries prevalence (DMFT scores), periodontal health, and access to preventive dental care. Data on study characteristics, population demographics and outcomes were extracted using a standardized form. Where at least three sufficiently homogeneous studies were available, a meta-analysis of DMFT outcomes was conducted.
resultsSeventeen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and three in the meta-analysis. Across adult populations, migrants consistently showed worse oral health than non-migrants, with higher DMFT scores (SMD = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.31-0.49; p < 0.05) scores than non-migrants, driven primarily by a higher number of missing teeth (M) (SMD = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.08-0.26; p < 0.05), while differences in decayed (D) and filled (F) teeth were smaller and more heterogeneous. Children and adolescents with a migration background, particularly those living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, had higher caries experience and a lower probability of caries-free dentitions in permanent teeth. Evidence on caries in primary dentition (dmft) was limited and heterogeneous and therefore summarized qualitatively only. Across age groups, migrants had lower odds of attending regular preventive dental check-ups than non-migrants (OR approximately 0.64-0.67). DISCUSSION: Despite statutory health insurance in Germany, migrants struggle with access to dental services. Structural and social determinants, including socioeconomic position, health literacy, language barriers, and perceived discrimination, likely contribute to these disparities.
conclusionTargeted public health strategies, culturally and linguistically adapted information, and measures to improve accessibility of dental care are needed to reduce oral health inequalities between migrants and the native German population.
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.