4.5 Review

Oral health status of children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE AND CHILD NEUROLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 10, Pages 1019-1026

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dmcn.13486

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimTo compare the oral health status of children and adolescents affected by intellectual disabilities with their unaffected counterparts. MethodCitations published in English were searched from electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) from their start dates to March 2017. The whole process was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PICO (population, intervention/interest, comparator, outcome) principle was used to formulate the topic. Studies were synthesized through qualitative summary or, whenever possible, meta-analysis. ResultsThe initial search yielded 2393 records. Thirty-nine studies from 22 countries were identified for qualitative analysis; 26 studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Participants with intellectual disabilities had higher levels of dental plaque, worse gingival status, fewer decayed and filled permanent teeth, and similar caries experience between males and females. These findings were supported by both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Various patterns of caries experiences were indicated by qualitative analysis, but it was not substantiated by meta-analysis. InterpretationThere is increasing worldwide interest in oral health status of children with intellectual disabilities. Differences in dental plaque deposition, gingival inflammation, and the number of decayed and filled permanent teeth were investigated between children and adolescents with and without intellectual disabilities. Evidence remains elusive about the pattern of caries experience among those children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available