Daily PubMed evidence board
Prevalence of dental caries in the primary, mixed and permanent dentitions in Nigeria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled studies from 2001-2023 to estimate how common dental cavities (caries) are among people in Nigeria. From t…
Signal score64Research triage score
CertaintyLowVerify in full text
PMID42224256Source identifier
Research triage, not medical advice
Do not use this summary, score, or benefit-cost estimate to diagnose, treat, prescribe, or change care without reviewing the full study and consulting qualified professionals.
Verify before acting
Check full-text methods, eligibility, outcomes, risk of bias, harms, conflicts, funding, replication, and applicability.
Plain-English signal
This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled studies from 2001-2023 to estimate how common dental cavities (caries) are among people in Nigeria. From the included studies, the authors report that about 17% of individuals had dental caries overall. Prevalence estimates were about 16% in primary teeth (children), 16% in mixed dentition, and 20% in permanent teeth (older children and adults). Reported prevalence was higher in rural areas (about 22%) than in semi-urban (17%) or urban areas (14%). The authors note large variation between studies and call for stronger prevention and better access to oral healthcare across Nigeria.
Why it matters
- Provides the first pooled national estimate (from included studies) of dental caries prevalence across primary, mixed and permanent dentitions in Nigeria, which is directly relevant to oral health planning and resource allocation.
- Estimates prevalence by dentition type and by setting (rural, semi-urban, urban), informing targeted prevention (e.g., school-based programs, rural outreach).
- Highlights geographic concentration of studies (mostly Southwestern Nigeria) and substantial heterogeneity, which matters for generalizability of national policy decisions.
Primary outcomes
- Pooled prevalence of dental caries overall and by dentition (primary, mixed, permanent) and by setting (rural, semi-urban, urban).
Effect summary
Abstract-reported pooled prevalence: overall 17% (95% CI 14%-21%), primary dentition 16% (95% CI 10%-24%), mixed dentition 16% (95% CI 11%-23%), permanent dentition 20% (95% CI 16%-26%). By setting: rural 22% (95% CI 7%-52%), semi-urban 17% (95% CI 14%-22%), urban 14% (95% CI 6%-29%). Substantial heterogeneity across studies (I2 96%-98%).
Benefit-cost lens
| Quick take | This meta-analysis gives pooled prevalence estimates that can inform prioritization and planning, but converting this into benefit-cost or program decisions requires local baseline population counts, costs of preventive and treatment interventions, and clarification of representativeness given high heterogeneity. |
|---|---|
| BCR anchor | 2 |
| Time horizon | 3 |
| Discount rate | 0.03 |
| Assumptions | Assessment based only on PubMed metadata and abstract; full text needed to verify included-study populations, diagnostic criteria, and quality assessments before economic modeling. |
Benefit-cost fields are assumptions-based unless explicitly source-derived. Treat them as prompts for deeper economic review.
Risk of bias
| Tool | rapid-abstract-screen (no formal RoB tool applied here) |
|---|---|
| Verdict | Some concerns |
| Notes | Assessment based on abstract only: study reports that study quality and risk of bias were assessed but details (criteria, ratings) are not available in the abstract. High heterogeneity and geographic clustering of studies raise concerns about representativeness and pooled estimate robustness; full-text review needed for formal risk-of-bias appraisal (e.g., study-level sampling, case definitions, calibration). |
Harms, equity, conflicts & implementation
| Implementation | Full-text review to confirm diagnostic criteria, age groups, geographic coverage and representativeness; local population denominators; costing of candidate interventions and delivery platforms; stakeholder engagement for prioritization; and pilot evaluation before scale-up. |
|---|---|
| Equity impact | Unclear from abstract. Reported higher rural prevalence suggests potential equity concerns (rural access to preventive and curative oral care), but subgroup representativeness and vulnerable-population data require full-text verification. |
| Harms | No harms or adverse effects reported in the abstract. Harms of any recommended interventions (e.g., fluoride programs) and unintended consequences are not addressed here and need to be assessed separately. |
| Registration | PROSPERO CRD42022362019 |
| Replication | Unknown from abstract-level triage; replication would require re-extraction of included studies and re-running meta-analysis on full-text data. |
Source links — verify original
Use PubMed and full-text links to confirm methods, population, outcomes, harms, conflicts, and applicability.