SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2024
Are educational tools in oral health programs for pregnant women effective in improving the oral status of mothers and babies? A systematic review.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Oral healthcare access: self-perceived barriers faced during pregnancy - a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Development and validation of a Spanish-language questionnaire to assess mothers' knowledge and practices regarding their children's oral health.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze, through a systematic review, the effectiveness of educational tools (ETs) in Oral Health Programs (OHPs) for pregnant women in improving their oral status and that of their babies.
methodSearches were carried out in 5 electronic databases. Randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized clinical trials (CTs) were selected that included pregnant women exposed or not to ETs in OHPs, whose oral health status, in the pre- or postnatal period, or of their babies were verified. The types of ETs, outcomes, and results were extracted. Bias risk was assessed by ROBINS-I and RoB 2.0; and the certainty of the evidence (CE) by GRADE.
resultsA total of nine studies were included. Most used more than one ET (n = 8), with verbal guidance used in all (n = 9). Mothers showed a reduction in biofilm (n = 3), caries (n = 4) and periodontitis (n = 4). All studies with babies (n = 3) were successful in preventing caries. RCTs (n = 3) were classified as low risk of bias (n = 1), with concerns (n = 1) and high risk of bias (n = 1). CTs (n = 6) presented risk of bias as low (n = 2), serious (n = 1) and critical (n = 3). Studies about caries in babies showed high CE, and those who evaluated caries and periodontal parameters/biofilm in the mother had moderate and low CE, respectively.
conclusionETs as a strategy of OHPs for pregnant women can be effective in preventing caries in themselves and in their babies. However, despite the improvement of the mothers' oral hygiene and gingival condition, the CE was low considering this parameter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39187649What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.