Prevalence of Dental Anomalies in Primary vs. Permanent Dentition in Individuals with Non-Syndromic Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Аннотация
ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the prevalence of dental anomalies in primary versus permanent dentition among individuals with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) and to elucidate the differences in these anomalies between the two dentitions.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, LILACS, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Scopus. Studies included were those assessing dental anomalies in patients with CLP, with data on both primary and permanent dentition. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and included data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and meta-analysis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was utilized to evaluate the quality of evidence.ResultsSeven retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of hyperdontia was higher in primary dentition (25%) compared to permanent dentition (12%), while hypodontia was more prevalent in permanent dentition (32%) than in primary dentition (12%). Patients with BCLP exhibited a greater prevalence of hypodontia in permanent dentition. Significant heterogeneity was observed across studies in terms of methodologies and sample sizes.ConclusionDental anomalies in patients with CLP differ between primary and permanent dentition, with hyperdontia being more prevalent in primary dentition and hypodontia in permanent dentition. Variations in prevalence and types of anomalies between patients with UCLP and BCLP highlight the need for standardized diagnostic protocols. Future research should address methodological inconsistencies to improve the robustness of findings.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.