Assessment of dental caries and salivary characteristics among type 1 diabetic Saudi children

Poor glycemic control impairs oral health in children with type 1 diabetes mellitus - a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…All in all, the included articles were from 14 countries. There were five studies from India [ 35 – 39 ], four from Iran [ 27 , 40 – 42 ],two from Saudi Arabia [ 43 , 44 ], two from Egypt [ 45 , 46 ], two from Greece [ 47 , 48 ], one from Kuwait [ 14 ], one from The United States [ 49 ] one from Poland [ 50 ], one from Portugal [ 51 ], one from Montenegro [ 52 ], one from Kosovo [ 53 ], one from Turkey [ 54 ], one from Brazil [ 55 ], one from Iraq [ 56 ], one from Libya [ 57 ], one from Sweden [ 58 ], one from Belgium [ 29 ], one from Romania [ 59 ], one from Italy [ 60 ], one from Hong Kong [ 61 ], one from Finland [ 62 ], one from Lithuania [ 63 ] and one from Hungary [ 64 ].…”

“…Twenty-two studies did not find statistically significant differences between the study group and the control group [ 27 , 29 , 38 , 41 – 44 , 46 – 52 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 59 – 62 , 64 ]. There were six studies revealing higher DMFT values in the DM groups [ 14 , 35 , 40 , 45 , 53 , 56 ]; and five studies found that children living with type 1 DM had lower DMFT values, which means a better caries prevalence [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 58 , 63 ].…”

“…All the other studies revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the study and control groups regarding the DMFT or DMFS indexes. From these 22 articles, twelve showed a higher DMFT value in DM groups, but these differences were not significant [ 27 , 38 , 44 , 46 , 29 , 42 , 49 , 51 , 55 , 57 , 62 , 64 ], and there were five studies in which children with DM had better DMFT values than healthy controls [ 41 , 43 , 52 , 54 , 61 ]. The remaining five articles did not report on the comparison of healthy and DM individuals, only comparing the groups divided by metabolic control [ 47 , 48 , 50 , 59 , 60 ].…”

“…There were 17 studies included in the meta-analysis [ 14 , 27 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 40 – 42 , 44 , 46 , 49 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 61 , 62 ]. Statistically significant differences were found between the groups, with a result of 0.41 (CI95%=0.03; 0.78).…”

“…Seven articles investigated the buffer capacity of children with DM [ 14 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 52 , 53 , 62 ]. Two articles showed statistically significantly worse buffer capacity [ 44 , 53 ], three articles did not find significant differences between the study and control group [ 14 , 48 , 62 ], and two studies reported better results in the DM group, while the buffer capacity of these children was not significantly higher compared to children without DM [ 47 , 52 ].…”