Aim: To estimate the global prevalence of early childhood caries using the WHO criteria. Design: Systematic review of studies published from 1960 to 2019. Data sources: PubMed, Google Scholar, SciELO, and LILACS. Eligibility criteria were articles using: dmft-WHO diagnostic criteria with calibrated examiners, probability sampling, and sample sizes. Study selection: Two reviewers searched, screened, and extracted information from the selected articles. All pooled analyses were based on random-effects models. The protocol is available on PROSPERO 2014 registration code CRD42014009578. Results: From 472 reports, 214 used WHO criteria and 125 fit the inclusion criteria. Sixty-four reports of 67 countries (published 1992-2019) had adequate data to be summarised in the meta-analysis. They covered 29 countries/59018 children. Global random-effects pooled prevalence was (percentage[95% CI]) 48[43, 53]. The prevalence by continent was Africa: 30[19, 45]; Americas: 48 [42, 54]; Asia: 52[43, 61]; Europe: 43[24, 66]; and Oceania: 82[73, 89]. Differences across countries explain 21.2% of the observed variance. Conclusions: Early childhood caries is a global health problem, affecting almost half of preschool children. Results are reported from 29 of 195 countries. ECC prevalence varied widely, and there was more variance attributable to between-country differences rather than continent or change over time. K E Y W O R D Searly childhood caries, epidemiology, oral health, preschool children, systematic review How to cite this article: Uribe SE, Innes N, Maldupa I. The global prevalence of early childhood caries: A systematic review with meta-analysis using the WHO diagnostic criteria.

Smoking was frequent among undergraduate dental students and they lacked knowledge of its addictiveness. More emphasis ought to be placed on education with regard to smoking and on cessation services.

No abstract

According to the FAIR principles, data produced by scientific research should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable—for instance, to be used in machine learning algorithms. However, to date, there is no estimate of the quantity or quality of dental research data evaluated via the FAIR principles. We aimed to determine the availability of open data in dental research and to assess compliance with the FAIR principles (or FAIRness) of shared dental research data. We downloaded all available articles published in PubMed-indexed dental journals from 2016 to 2021 as open access from Europe PubMed Central. In addition, we took a random sample of 500 dental articles that were not open access through Europe PubMed Central. We assessed data sharing in the articles and compliance of shared data to the FAIR principles programmatically. Results showed that of 7,509 investigated articles, 112 (1.5%) shared data. The average (SD) level of compliance with the FAIR metrics was 32.6% (31.9%). The average for each metric was as follows: findability, 3.4 (2.7) of 7; accessibility, 1.0 (1.0) of 3; interoperability, 1.1 (1.2) of 4; and reusability, 2.4 (2.6) of 10. No considerable changes in data sharing or quality of shared data occurred over the years. Our findings indicated that dental researchers rarely shared data, and when they did share, the FAIR quality was suboptimal. Machine learning algorithms could understand 1% of available dental research data. These undermine the reproducibility of dental research and hinder gaining the knowledge that can be gleaned from machine learning algorithms and applications.