4.0 Review

Edentulism among diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic controls: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12762

Keywords

diabetes mellitus; edentulous; odds ratio; prevalence; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper systematically evaluated the prevalence of edentulism among diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic individuals. The meta-analysis of seven studies showed that the risk of being edentulous was significantly higher among diabetic patients, although the odds ratio was relatively small.
Objective: The purpose of this paper is to systematically and critically appraise the available scientific evidence concerning the prevalence of edentulism among diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic people.Methods: MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were comprehensively searched up to April 2023 to identify appropriate studies. The inclusion criteria were observational studies conducted in human subjects >= 18 years of age with the primary aim of investigating the prevalence of edentulism among diabetic patients. Based on the extracted data, a meta-analysis was performed. Recommendations based on the body of evidence were formulated using the GRADE approach.Results: Independent screening of 2085 unique titles and abstracts revealed seven publications that met the eligibility criteria. Study size ranged from 293 to 15,943 participants. Data from all seven studies were suitable for meta-analysis. Overall, 8.3% of the studied population was edentulous. The weighted mean prevalence of edentulism among diabetic and non-diabetics was 14.0% and 7.1%, respectively. The overall odds ratio for diabetic patients to be edentulous as compared to non-diabetics was 2.39 (95% CI [1.73, 3.28], p < 0.00001).Conclusion: There appears to be moderate certainty that the risk of being edentulous for diabetic patients compared to non-diabetic people is significant, but the odds ratio is estimated to be small.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available